A FACTOR ANALYTIC STUDY OF n 3NFLUENCE Thesis for the Degree of M. A. MICHiGAN STATE UNIVERSITY FRANK E. MILLAR 1970 éhaflmflm‘ :_::_ 1‘81” g I. IF RA Q 1! k i . - A .. A ”Mama 5 BAiChlgan State I b 22 University Nd A FACTOR ANALYTIC STUD! OF1g INFLUENCE by Frank E. Millar This study sought to develOp an objective questionnaire which could be used in a self-administered situation to adequately measure the Eggg‘gglinfluence personality dimension. Evidence suggesting the need 0 influence variable was inadvertently discovered by Dr. James Uleman (1965) while he was attempting to improve verhoff's (1955) TAT measure of the need for power. Persons with a high g Influence are characterized as enjoying the influence process per se and are expected to influence others through persuasive rather than coercive techniques. As a casual review of the literature will reveal. a tremendous amount of communication research (e.g. persuasion and self-persuasion studies, leadership research. network and interaction analysis research) deals either directly or indirectly with influence attempts. Thus, this hypothesized need-state is considered to be an extremely useful control variable for communication researchers in their attempts at parceling out the variance in numerous communication situations. Frank E. Millar At the present time. however. the only available measure of‘g Influence, is Uleman's TAT measure. This measurement technique demands a considerable amount of time to administer and score. requires trained coders, has proven difficult to consistently obtain high levels of inter-coder reliability, and would be difficult - if not impossible - to use outside the laboratory. For these reasons. the development of an interval. objective questionnaire to measure a person‘s influence needs was thought to be desirable in order to minimize the risks of interpretation involved in using a TAT measure and to facilitate the use of this potentially useful variable. The deve10pment of the objective instrument consisted of running three seperate factor analyses on the reSponses to three different questionnaires by three different samples of students. The last two questionnaires used were refinements of the earlier ones. The subjects scores on the final questionnaire develOped were correlated with their scores on the TAT measure of g Influence for validation of the objective instrument. The objective measure failed to measure the subject's EEEQ.E2.£2£12§£22- These results were discussed in terms of the methodological problems in this study and the conceptual ambiguity of the need to influence personality dimension. Accepted by the faculty of the Department of Communication. College of Communication Arts. Eichigan State university. in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the hasters of Arts degree. 14/442 14677.72/27’!’ Director—6f Thesis Guidance Committee: Xflfl/7Q/7h C47'. Chairman J}; o . A FACTOR ANALYTIC STUDY OFIQ INFLUENCE By Frank E. Miller A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTERS OF ARTS Department of Communication 1970 :Q_WQC7 ‘1 TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION . . . . . . OV.r'13' O O O C O . . . 1 O O O 1 Implications of the Utility of fi_lnfluence . . . 4 Leadership BOSOCrCh e e e e e e e e e e e e NetworkStud1°Ueeeee eeeeeeee N Influence in a Self-Persuasion Paradigm . N Influence heasure . . . . . . . . . . . . CHAPTER II METHODS AND PROCEDURES . . . . . . . . Scale Construction . . . . . . Initial Administration of the Objective Instrument . . . . . . . . Second Administration of the Objective IflSthEQNt e e e e e e e a Third Questionnaire: Administration of the Objective Instrument and the TAT Measure Of E'IanUQnO. e e e e e e e e e e e e e CHAPQ‘EB III RESULTS 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 CHAPTER IV DISCUSSION . . . . Methodological Problems Conceptual Ambiguity . . . . . . . . . . . WOTNOTES O O O O I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 REFERENCES I O O O O O O O O O 0 O O O O O O O O O APPENDICES O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O I O . . 6 e e 10 . . 12 e a 15 . . 19 . . . 20 e a 21 I O 26 . . 31 e e 38 . . an e e “6 C O O “8 - . 53 . . . 54 LIST OF TABLES Table Page Factor structure after the seventeenth rotation..2h-26 Factor structure that emerged from the second ‘dlflinistr‘tloneeeaeeeeeee'eeee List of the 26 statements used in the final objective instrument . . . . . . . . . . . . Factor structure of the responses to the 26 statements used in the final objective instru- menteeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee Means and standard deviations of the indices correlated with Uleman's TAT measure of g In- {1118110. 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O Biserial correlation coefficients between the subjects' scores on the eleven indices listed in Table 5 and their scores on Uleman's TAT measure of n_Influence . . . . . . . . . . . . Means and standard deviations of the state- ments used to form the five factor indices in thO‘nalyslseeeeeeeeeeeeeeee Intercorrelation matrix of factor statements . 28-30 31-32 36-37 . . 38 39-40 90-91 LIST OF APPEKDICES Appendix Page A TAT AASUER SHEETS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 B DESCRIPTION OF TAT STIMULUS PICTURES . . . . . . 63 C DEFINITION OF SCORING CATEGORIES . . . . . . . . 65 D FIRST OBJECTIVE INSTRUMENT . . . . . . . . . . . 69 E SECOND OBJECTIVE INSTRUMENT . . . . . . . . . . 77 F FINAL OBJECTIVE INSTRUMENT . . . . . . . . . . . 83 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Overview A motivational distinction between persons who desire power as a means and those who desire it as an end has been suggested by Bertrand Russell (1938). Russell preposed that certain people attempt to influence others and strive for positions of influence either because they seek certain objectives whose attainment requires the exercise of influence. or because they gain satisfaction directly from the ability to influence others. He labeled this difference in motives the instrumental and intrinsic motivation for exerting influence.1 In 1965. Uleman. in an attempt t.° improve Verhoff‘s - .al.‘ (1955) need for power measure._discovered evidence suggesting rue-1‘ PJ’s-u“ ‘ ""“Wecvewsa :me-m» 1W 3:: an W m w W “mm" “" that certain persons do indeed find the exercise of power Wmmm ”Fm-n ”fimw'. “‘3‘"; r»... Wear?” intrinsically rewarding._, leman labeled this new personality \___n - - “‘1” "“‘ """m “cl-gm ’1 n. dimension need to influence. From the evidence collected. ' u ‘p. MAMd-rh-J a’ Uleman defined individuals with a high need to influence as "harem: waxes. those who enjoy exerting influence for its own sake. Re states: ...those high in Uleman's n Power do seem to enjoy the exercise of power for its own sake. They win more money in gamtling games. even though the money *3 IL’u’aI‘} MM; =‘h‘155 Jghg‘cv- ,-‘ ,. vi , 2 is not "real" and there is no other explicit incentive for winning....They are rated as more dominant by peers when dominance is defined in terms of self- confident mastery of others....power seems to be something to be exercised and used. rather than conserved defensively: and the goal is to see one'e influence on others. rather than to avoid being influenced...Uleman's g_Power might be described as a need to influence others for whatever purpose or goal. (p. 207) A defining characteristic of persons high on n, Influence has to do with persuading others through interaction. a continuous. dyadic. give-and-take situation. Conversely. those high on a need for power are more likely to be involved in a one-way situation where control is gained and imposed.2 ...9 Influence derives from a confidence in one's ability to exercise influence. and a desire to do so; g_Power derives more from a lack of confidence and a desire to compensate for weakness by gaining power. (Uleman. 1970. p. 30) High n.1nf1uence persons can be expected to use persuasive rather than coercive techniques for influencing others. Given a confidence in one's own ability to exercise influence. the high n.1nf1uence person should not feel the need to coerce others by promising external inducements. either attractive rewards or withdrawal of punishments. Rather. the person being influenced is permitted relatively more freedom in his behavior. basing his actions on hi? own evaluation and interpretation of the messages the influencer presented. Influence is here conceived as a 1' f (awn-m--- . 3 process of mutual accommodation and not as something one person does to another. If external inducements are used to gain control. the influence act is more one-sided and suggests a defensive motive on the part of the influencer. From a process viewpoint. however. the messages themselves serve as the persuasive devices and these can be modified and adapted to the situation to insure successful persuasive attempts. For this reason. high a Influence persons can be expected to be more sensitive to feedback in an interpersonal situation. since continual readjustment of one's own messages is necessary to persuade another. This assumption was tested by Berger (1968) but was only partially supported. V‘“ I- u “" The personality dimension of 3 Influence is. then. relevant to the study of human communication. Given that this dimension is a valid one. it should distinguish among communicators in the types of communication behaviors they exhibit and the interpersonal relationships they create and maintain. In studying and theorizing about communication situations. the communication researcher must adequately describe and explain: (a) the interactants themselves. (b) the messages they produce. (c) their relationship. and (d) the situational or organizational setting in which they communicate. The first necessary step leading to the goal of explanation-prediction is. of course. description. ' I .-. ~ . ~l.,."" ‘IV, “‘k’me~.~Mt—L'~—‘_ a At present. the only descriptive measure of the 3 Influence motive is Uleman's projective Thematic Appor- ception Test (TAT). This projective approach to measurement creates several problems: it requires trained coders. takes considerable time to score. is awkward-oif not impossible-- to administer outside the laboratory. and does not consistently yield acceptable levels of intercoder reliability. This study sought to deve10p an objective. interval scale that would correlate with Uleman's TAT measure of n,Influence so that this variable could more easily be used in the laboratory and adapted to field and survey research. Implications of the Utility of gFInfluence Uleman (1970) claims that essentially two approaches have dominated the literature on personal influence. Both these approaches have typically ignored the personality of the communicator. In one. influence is conceived of as something one person does to another: as in the Kelman (1961) model of social influence. the credibility study of hewgill and Miller (1965). the verbal conditioning study of Verplank (1955). or the eXperimenter bias study of Rosenthal (196#). In the second approach. influence is viewed as a bargaining situation where it is linked to the interaction between participants. (Thibaut and Kelley. 1959; Solomon. 1960; Deutsch and Krauss. 1962.) 5 To these two general approaches a third should be added. Some studies have attempted to discover characteristics of the receiver which make him more susceptible to influence. (Weiss and Fine. 1955: Cohen. 1960: Miller and Lobe. 196?) Personality and demographic characteristics of the receiver are controlled and manipulated in this approach. This third approach. however. does not look at the interaction between communicators nor at the characteristics of the source. but at the receiver in isolation from the other components. At face value. Uleman's dimension should be useful for an analysis of all three components in the influence process: source. receiver. and the interaction process per se. The 3 Influence variable would appear to provide an excellent control for the communication researcher in his attempt to describe. explain. and predict influential behavior. Several authors (Thibaut and Kelley. 1959: Cartwright. 1962: Mulder. 1960: Berger. 1968) have suggested that con- trolling on a personality dimension pertinent to the motives for exerting power would offer greater insight into the influence process. Thibaut and Kelley. who used a game- theory paradigm in their research and theory-building state: common sense indicates that power is useful to enable its holder to gain more favorable reward- cost positions. If one postulates the existence of a need for power or dominance. then this would be true by definition: the possession and exercise of power would be rewarding in itself. There may well be such a need or drive. but we will attempt to account for'the advantages of power in terms of the assumptions implicit in our theory. (emphasis my own. 1959. p. 116) 6 Thibaut and Kelley's theoretical formulations are based on the individual's own payoff matrix. The inputs to this payoff matrix (i.e. the rewards and costs to the individual) are theoretically determined by such factors as a person's beliefs. values. needs. and motives. One input into a person's phenomenolOgical matrix would be the need to. and satisfaction derived from influencing others. Uleman's n.1nfluence is implicitly suggested by Thibaut and Kelley. However. they choose not to measure personality characteristics. even though such inputs apparently would increase the precision of the predictions. Leadership fiegearch If g_Influence is a valid motive for behavior. than it can be assumed that those high on this need will maintain relationships and be found in positions through which they can influence others. They would be in leadership positions because they can exert influence and because they are seen as more dominant by fellow group members. and not because they wish to defend or protect themselves from being influenced by others. Hemphill (1961) has clearly shown that men strive for leadership positions to achieve goals of importance to them. hemphill was interested in studying the motivation to lead and concluded a series of eXperiments by stating that this motivation is heightened by: 7 (a) large rewards promised by accomplishing the group's task. (b) reasonable expectancy that by working on the task it can be accomplished. (c) acceptance by other members of the group for attempting to lead. (d) a task which requires a high rate of group decisions. (and to a lesser degree) (e) possession of superior knowledge or competence relevant to the accomplishment of the task. and (f) previously acquired status as the group's leader. (p. 213) -All of these considerations could be more accurately discussed by a knowledge of a person's n.1nfluence. On the other hand. these prepositions should serve as behavioral validations of Uleman's distinction between n,Influence and n Power. both of which seem contained in this motivation to lead. Cartwright and Zander (1968). in their discussion of leadership traits. also imply the usefulness of an 9 Influence dimension. They state that the "trait approach" to leadership has not been a fruitful one and argue for a functional analysis of leadership roles. These authors do not deny that there may be relevant personality characteristics of leaders. but rather urge that these "traits" should not be the only or primary focus of inquiry. This author agrees with their emphasis. as the primary purpose of this study was the construction of an objective measure of this person- ality dimension to be used in conjunction with other behavioral and situational indices. However. since Uleman‘s conception of influence stresses the interaction between 8 communicators and not something one person does to another. it was felt that g Influence should be related to Cartwright and Zanders' considerations of a leader's suitability to the types of functions leaders are eXpected to perform. These functions are: (a) aiding members in setting group goals. (b) moving the group toward its goals. (0) improving the quality of interactions among members. (d) building group cohesiveness. and (e) making resources available to the group. (p. 304) These functions require the leader to be able to exert influence over other group members through interaction with them. Knowing that a leader is expected to perform these functions. a person who enjoys the influence process per as should be better suited to leadership roles than one who does not. By controlling on g_lnfluence. both the person's suitability to the leadership role and the quality of performance within the role could be more I accurately determined. Krech. Crutchfield. and Ballachey (1962) give perhaps the clearest suggestion of the utility of an gllnfluence dimension to leadership research. They state that a leader should be identified by the amount of influence he has over the other group members. (p. #23) If one accepts this definition. then at least three corollary prOpositions concerning the conception of leadership acts follow: (1) Leadership is not an "all-or-none" matter: to some 9 extent every group member is a leader: (2) Leadership acts are interpersonal behavioral events; the exertion of influence is inherently part of the interaction between ; members; and (3) The formal. designated leader may or may i not be the actual leader: 1.6. the one who exerts the most influence. (p. h23-2h) Although high g_lnfluence persons show only a slight tendency to seek elective offices. they are rated as more dominant by peer members of their group.“ In other words. though they might not be the "formal" leader of their group. high n Influence persons can be expected to be among the "actual" leaders. (This raises the speculation that high Q Influence persons are more involved than those low on this need. This increased involvement might be reflected by their belonging to more clubs or organizations. or by their holding more offices within the groups to which they do belong.) Given Krech and Crutchfield's three corollary propositions and Uleman's findings. the desirability of controlling on this personality dimension to more accurately explain the emergence of leaders and the functions of leadership acts seems readily apparent. Since certain individuals must perform these behaviors. a knowledge of those persons in the group who find the exercise of influence ‘ I § ._-. F‘- ' " ‘i "‘ '1 5 V \ .'r‘o'¢."1 -V." vs 1’ y'h'v 'l i” ("a L. \ I“: w 1' f'. z =_: - - ~ a1)“: Mia“). ‘6 5., K M ,R S ‘x‘ W . ‘r ‘5 'w - -‘ -.. , ‘ 10 intrinsically rewarding would aid the researchers in their task of explanation. Network Studies Mulder (1960). in his discussion of the communication network studies in small groups (Leavitt. 1950; Shaw. l95hx Bavelas. 1950). also indicates that a g Influence variable would be useful to the communication researcher in this experimental setting. The tOpological structure. characterized by invar- iability. determines what behavior is possible; dynamic variables. however. determine what behavior will actually occ ;. That is to say. we acknowledge that the topological 'structure' (centrality) leads. via other variables. to satisfaction. But. especially for the prediction of satisfaction in situations different from those used in the reported studies. these other dynamic intervening variables must be identified. (p. 242) hulder's interest was in analyzing the satisfaction derived by persons in power positions within the network. he deveIOped three dynamic variables to study this satisfaction; however. the variables used can only be considered dynamic within a given t0p010gical structure. they are not independent of that structure. The variable. g_Influence. is. by definition. a "dynamic intervening variables" one that is independnet of any particular network structure. yet relevant to an analysis of power situations. Power was defined by Mulder as ”the possibility of determining the behavior of others." (p. 2&3) In other 11 words. power is the potential £g_determine. while influence is the behavior thgg,determines the actions of others. Mulder concluded his study by stating that the exercise of power appears to be the primary determinant of the satisfaction of the central persons in the communication network. He states: . ...the exercise of power per se leads to satisfaction not only through such variables as increase of status. more pleasant activity. or other concomitant gains. but in itself. (p. 253) Thus. the intrinsic satisfaction derived from influencing others is also relevant to a communication analysis of small group behavior. Given that people vary in the amount of satisfaction derived. it would be useful for the researcher to discover the extent to which the exercise of power is intrinsically rewarding. hulder attempts to explain behavior toward others in terms of a power-distance theory. he admits. however. that this explanation. although focusing on the behavioral phenomenon. in no way closes the discussion and urges that a further specification of conditions is necessary for a more adequate explanation of this type of behavior. It is this author's contention that controlling on n Influence would help considerably in further specifying what conditions are relevant to an analysis of certain types of behaviors toward others. 12 In summarizing the literature on power and influence in groups. Cartwright and Zander state: ...it is evident that the decision whether to engage in an act of influence is complexly deter- mined and is governed by at least four considera- tions: (a) the net advantage to the individual in performing the act. (b) the consequences of the act for the group. (c) the subjective probability that the act will be successful. which depends in part upon the individual's assessment of his own power. and (d) the prospect of being rewarded for fulfilling role expectations. Further research is needed to specify the conditions that determine the relative weight given each of these considerations. (1968. p- 219) By controlling for need t9 influence. the importance of consideration "c" and the psychOIOgical advantages of "a" and rewards of "d" could be more accurately weighted. Given that n_1nf1uence is relevant to the prediction and explanation of influence behaviors in interpersonal situations. let us now turn to the only study that has explicitly used this variable. 3 Influence ;n_g,§elf-persuasion paradigm Berger (1968) used the g Influence measure as a control variable is studying self-persuasion following the writing of counterattitudinal essays. He employed a 2x2x2 design using a median split on a Influence scores and manipulating the amount of monetary incentives paid (either $2.50 or 50¢) and whether or not the author had failed or succeeded in persuading the reader. It was assumed: 13 ...that if persons with high influence needs per- ceived that their counterattitudinal messages might affect another's attitudes. this perceived Opportunity to influence might provide sufficient Justification for engaging in counterattitudinal behavior....In contrast. individuals with low influence needs given the same Opportunity to persuade another. should see that Opportunity as insufficient Justification for engaging in counterattitudinal message production. Hence. differences in monetary incentive level should produce differential selfopersuasion... (pp. 435-436) Berger further assumed that persons high on n Influence "are more sensitive to feedback regarding their success or failure in persuading others." (p. #36) Hence. more self-persuasion was hypothesized for those with high influence needs who successfully persuaded their readers. Although the predicted interaction between incentive levels and 3 Influence was not observed. Berger does report a significant main effect for n_Influence. Those high on this dimension experienced more attitude change than those with low influence needs after encoding counterattitudinal essays. The predicted interaction between n.1nfluence and feedback was also not significant. but the results were in the right direction with the high Q Influence/Success subjects manifesting more attitude change. Furthermore. in analysing two message indices used by Greenberg (1960) as measures of cagnitive stress-~the mean ratio of first person pronouns to total number of 1h of words. and the number of cross-outs and insertions in the essay-~Berger reports a significant interaction. The high E’Influence/32.50 and the low a Influence/50¢ subjects used fewer first person pronouns and made significantly more cross-outs and insertions than the other two conditions. In explaining this unexpected high level of cognitive stress for the high n_lnf1uence/high Incentive subjects. Berger suggests that these persons might have seen the messy as payment for persuading their readers; while the low n_1nfluence/Low Incentive subjects perceived the money as payment for writing the essay. (p. “#1) Realizing that it is difficult to successfully persuade others with only one message. the high g_lnfluence subjects might have been overly motivated. If so. they would experience high stress and this could have interfered with their encoding per- formance. Berger's study is the first to use n’lnfluence as a way of explaining more of the variance in self-persuasion paradigms. It is claimed that this variable is a poten- tially useful one for future behavioral experiments. Taken as a whole. the present study suggests that need to influence may account for a sizeable proportion of self-persuasion variance. at least under certain conditions. Although the present experiment only attempted to relate need to influence to self-persuasion. it is obvious that 15 the need to influence variable may prove to be a useful one in the study of other persuasion phenomenon. (Berger. 1968. p. 4&2) Uleman's g,Influence personality measure does then. appear to be useful to the communication researcher. Such a variable has been implicitly suggested by a series of authors in a variety of research settings. Given its utility. why should another measurement technique be deve10ped? After all. Uleman's projective measure is already available. TAT measures. however. are awkward to administer and are time consuming to code and analyse. A projective instrument should not be used....if you have a more objective instrument that adequately measures the same variable. There is no sense in taking the risk if you do not have to. Moreover. it is best to avoid complex projective techniques. like the Rorschach test and the TAT. that require highly specialized training and a great deal of perhaps questionable interpretation. (Kerlinger. 196“. p. 538) A description and discussion of the TAT measure itself should demonstrate these measurement and interpretation problems. fl Influence Measure The scoring system for n,Influence consists of ten content categories. Subjects are asked to write a story about each of four slides. In writing their stories. they follow four questions which serve as organizational guidelines and focus their attention on certain aspects 16 of the scene (see Appendix A for a capy of these guideline answer sheets and Appendix B for a description of the four slides used). The first content category--Influence Imagery--is used as a filter category and does not contribute toward the subject's score on 2,1nfluence. If the story meets the requirements of this category (see Appendix c). then the scorer continues coding. If not. the subject is given a score of zero for that story. Given that the story is about influence attempts. it is scored by counting the number of "emphasis modifiers" present. These nine categories are: prestige. organisation. no self-deprecation. no reminiscene. no dread. counter- reaction. consultation. threat. and separation (see Appendix C for a description of each). The maximum score on each slide is nine. The assumption behind the scoring system is that the more emphasis given the influence behavior. the more g_Influence the person has. This is a standard procedure for scoring many projective need measures (e.g. g_Achievement. n_Power. g Dominance. etc.). One problem with this particular scoring system is that the content category which scorers have the most difficulty with is the filter item. Influence Imagery.5 Obviously this category is crucial in establishing reliability. since it determines whether or not the story will be scored. The absence modifiers (e.g. no dread. no 17 reminiscence. and no selfudeprecation) are usually scored. so that the overall reliability between coders is heavily dependent on their agreement on the filter category. Uleman reports that interscorer reliabilities above .80 using Kendall's U statistic are not uncommon. (Berger. 1968. obtained a U of .69) but admits in personal conversations that these are difficult to obtain. Although this level of intercoder reliability. if obtained. is perfectly adequate for experimental research. the projective measure requires trained coders. is time consuming to score. and is awkward to administer. Uleman. working with undergraduate students. states that about eight to 10 hours were sufficient to train adequate coders (1970. p. 26). Berger (1968) spent between eight to 1“ hours with his graduate coders.7 The coders in this study-oone undergraduate and two graduate students-~spent from ten to 1“ hours learning the coding system. This included a four hour practice session in which scoring disagreements were discussed and consensus was reached. Furthermore. on the average. it took each coder working alone about 25 minutes to code the four stories written by each subject. Although comparisons with Berger's and Uleman's coders are not available. they both assumed that roughly 20 minutes per subject were required 8 to adequately score the stories. It takes. at a minimum. 18 20 minutes to administer the slides and another 20 minutes per subject to code the stories once obtained. Thus. this technique is extremely time consuming. expensive. and inefficient. In summary. the purpose of this exploratory study was the construction of a more efficient. but equally valid objective interval scale to measure Uleman's n Influence. This attempt was made for primarily five reasons: (1) n.1nfluence was considered to be a useful control variable for communication researchers in a variety of experimental settings; (2) the existing projective technique requires trained coders: (3) it has been difficult to consistently obtain high levels of intercoder reliability: (h) it takes considerable time to administer and score: and. (5) it is difficult. if not impossible. to administer outside the laboratory. If such an objective scale could be created. the researcher's task would be greatly simplified. the risk involved minimized. and this variable could also be used in field and survey studies outside the laboratory. CHAPTER II METHODS AND PROCEDURES Factor analytic techniques were considered to be the best available means of constructing a more efficient objective measure of g Influence. Factor analysis is a set of mathematical procedures that group variables in the correlation matrix into clusters that share common variance. 1.0. that are inter-correlated and mutually predictive. Using a Factor A routine. a principal factors method of factor analysis. three separate factor analyses were run on the responses from three different samples to three separate questionnaires. The last two questionnaires were refinements of the earlier ones. The last questionnaire (see Appendix F) was correlated with the TAT measure of 3,1nfluence for validation of the objective instrument. Since factor analysis requires that the variables be linearly related. refinements of the measurement scales used were also made to better need the assumption of intervality. The generation of the three questionnaires and the factor structures resulting from each will be discussed in turn. 19 20 Scale Construction Initially. 110 items were generated which seemed to have some degree of face validity in terms of Uleman'e conception of the E,Inf1uence dimension. People high on this need are conceived of as enjoying the influence process per se. The act of influencing is rewarding in itself. and serves as a motivator for persuasive and influential behaviors. From these 110 statements. 77 were selected to be factor analysed. Sources for these statements were: (1) Ten from Trodahl's (1963) shortened Dogmatism Scale. The statements used were those that had the highest correlation with the complete 40 item Degmatism Scale in the self- administered situation. (Numbers 10. 15. 17. 19. 22. 59. 62. 68. 71. and 76 in Appendix D). (2) Another ten statements (Numbers 1“. 18. 25. 29. 33. 35. 39. 49. 67. and 72 in Appendix D) from Berger's (1966) factor analytic study of self-esteem scales. The 10 chosen represent the two items loading the highest on each of the five factors of self-esteem reported in that study. (3) Twenty-five statements based on stimulus phrases or words contained in Strong Vocational Interest Blank for men. Form T399. (humbers 1. 3. 5. 9. 11. 23. 26. 31. 36. 37. 39. no. hi. #7. #8. 50. 51. 52. 55. 61. 6h. 65. 66. 73. and 77 in Appendix D). The SVIB was suggested to this author by 21 Uleman as a possible fruitful source of objective statements. It is actually quite difficult to state exactly which items used directly result from phrases in the SVIB. since this form stimulated many ideas about how to objectify the gggd_tg,influence. (h) Seven items (Numbers 6. 24. 38. an. 53. 56. and 58 in Appendix D) generated reflected characteristics of the emphasis modifiers given in the g,Inf1uence scoring manual. For instance. Number 6 in Appendix D reads "I like to reminisce about my past experiences;" this item refers to the No Reminiscence category. Similarly. Number 53 reads "I often have apprehensive and fearful feelings about my future." referring to the no Dread category. Number 56 in Appendix D was included to see if the respondent "cowers before an uncertain future;" it reads "Generally. threats make me angry and want to retaliate.“ (5) Lastly. the remaining 25 items were generated directly from the conceptualization of Q_Influence and its theoretical distinction from n Power. Initial Administration of the Objective Instrument These 77 statements were administered to 7h high school students attending a debate workshOp at Michigan State University in the summer of 1969. Debaters were chosen because it was intuitively felt that they might be 22 higher on this need dimension. and hence. more accurately reflect what statements are related to the agggbgg’inglugncg. These students ranged in age from 13 to 17. The resultant factor structure is contained in Table 1. Factor A routine was used with the Kiel-wrigley criterion set at one so the maximum possible information could be obtained from this first set of statements. As many clusters as reasonable was desired in order to get the best estimate of the mutually predictive items. This technique generated 1? factors which accounted for 68.74% of the variance in the responses to all 77 statements. The factor purity score given in Table l was suggested by Jeffery Katser in personal conversations. It is the square of the factor loading divided by the item's communality. Of the total variance explained on that item-~the communslity-~the factor purity score represents the amount explained by that factor. For example. if the communality for item x was .764 and its factor loading on Fictor I was .7233 then X's purity score on I would be .7232/.764 - .684. In other words. of the variance explained on Item X by all factors. 68.4% was accounted for by its variability on Factor Y. or the seventeen factors generated. only six had three or more statements with loadings above .50. These six factors are given in Table 1. They were labeled: 23 Leadership. Negative Self-Esteem. Headship. Closed- Hindedness. Difficulty in Conversing. and Verbal Assertiveness. Each of these six factors except Close- hindedness was included in the second questionnaire (see Appendix E). 29 Table 1. Factor structure after the seventeenth rotation: only those factors which had three items or more with loadings of .50 or greater are listed. Statement Leadership Easter 1 . 6 When I'm in a club. I prefer to be one of its officers. If given the opportunity. I think I would make a good leader. I would rather be Just a member of a club then one of its officers. I feel "unnatural" and "ill-at-ease" when I have to tell others what to do.- Having the responsibility of directing the activities of others tends to make me nervous and apprehensive. when there is a Job to be done. Idd rather be in control of the situation than take directions from someone else. I must admit that I actually enjoy directing the actions of others. I can usually get others to do what I want done. I like being in a position of authority so that others will look up to me. Trying to persuade someone else to accept my point of view is both stimulating and enjoyable. Ne ative Self-‘steem actor .12 I often get so discouraged with myself that I wonder whether anything is worthwhile. I very often feel that I am a worth- less individual. I often have apprehensive and fearful feelings about my future. I am sure that my friends really like me. I often find myself "daydreaming". One's status or position is a thing to be defended against attack. I very often worry about whether other people like to be with me. .828 .758 .726 .694 e67“ .655 .595 .516 .uu5 .916 .814 .696 .639 .623 .501 .4h8 .926 .787 .756 .688 .835 .817 .749 .776 .7u6 .596 .726 .809 .728 .583 .733 .539 .599 e667 Loading h2 Purity .861 .769 ’.767 .577 .556 .572 .h56 .357 .332 .238 .818 .668 .701 .529 .h65 .335 .272 25 Table i. (can't): §tatement Difficulty in gonversinggFactor_14}78%) when I'm with a group Of people. I usually have trouble in finding the right things to talk about. I find it very difficult to talk to peOple I've never met before. I have difficulty in finding things to talk about with strangers. When I'm with a group of friends. I usually lead the conversation. A position of power and authority should be viewed as a means toward some goal and not as an end in itself. geadship Factor_j4.26fil One's status in a club or organization is a measure of his personal worth. A person in authority should use his influence for the attainment of group goals. and not for personal interests or fame. A person in a superior role should be considerate and Open to suggestions from his subordinates. When another person has a strong Opinion on some topic. it is usually not worth the effort to try and change his mind. A person in an authority position must maintain his distance from his sub- ordinates or else they will take ad- vantage of him. Verbal Assertiveness ' etc 4.2 Even though I like to make my Opinions known. I usually don't express my- self until I'm asked. I enjoy listening to other people's ideas more than I like expressing my one I tend to hold back when asked to state my evaluation of something. When in a discussion with others. I will always voice my Opinion even though it is not in agreement with theirs. Loading hz Purity .777 .654 .924 .720 .665 .780 .601 .723 .h99 -.428 .708 .258 -.433 .652 .288 .648 .661 .635 "'e6l‘21'4Y e569 e728 -e563 e75“ .421 .512 .736 .356 .504 .639 .397 -e845 e802 e891 -e566 .748 .1428 “-563 .562 .564 .523 .705 .387 26 Table i. (can't): Statement _ ading h2 Purity glpse-Mindedness Eact9£g14.05if Lg There are two kinds of people in this world: those who are for the truth and those who are against the truth. .717 .623 .824 Of all the different phiIOSOphies in this world. there is probably only one which is correct. .613 .571 .658 I usually stick out an argument to the bitter end. even though I'm sure my ideas will not be accepted. .596 .737 .481 I am sure that someday I will be a success. .509 .690 .376 Second Administration: Refinement of the Objective Instrument. The second questionnaire constructed from the factor analysis and the intercorrelations Of the first set of responses is found in Appendix E. It consisted of 38 statements. Some of the statements shown in Table l were reworded to make them clearer and more Opinionated. For instance. I'when I'm with a group of people. I usually have trouble in finding the right things to talk about.” was changed to read "When I'm with a group Of peOple. I always have trouble in finding the right things to say." The statement "Even though I like to make my Opinions known. I usually don't express them until I'm asked." was considered to be double-barreled and hard to interpret. It was divided into the following two statements; "I like to make 2? my Opinions known to others." and "I won't make my Opinions known until after I'm asked to state them." The revised questionnaire was administered to 79 summer school students at Bowling Green U.iversity enrolled in a basic speech course. The respondents ranged in age from 18 to 33. These responses were factor analysed using the same Factor A routine. The standard Kiel-wrigley criterion of three was used. Eight factors which accounted for 58.26% of the variance were generated. or the five factors from the first administration. only the headship factor did not emerge in this second factor analysis. The other two factors which had three or more items with loadings above .50 were labeled Verbal Shyness and Reminiscence. The Leadership factor. which was thought to be closest to the conception of n Influence. was again the strongest factor. Eleven items had their highest loadings on this factor. which accounted for 13.14% of the variance (see Table 2). 28 Table 2. administration with the revised 38 items. “ K tatement Lgading h2 Fugitz Lgadershio Factor {13.14fl When in a club. I want to be one of its Officers. e769 e721 e811 I must admit that I actually enjoy di- resting the actions of others. .737 .607 .895 When there is a job to be done. I'd rather be in control of the situation than take directions from someone 0183. e697 e545 e891 I would rather be just a member of a club than one of its officers. -.692 .597 .802 I usually start the activities of the group of which I'm a member. .692 .597 .802 If given the Opportunity. I think I would make a good leader. .686 .695 .676 I am good at getting others to do what I want done. .573 .558 .587 I feel "unnatural" and "ill-at-ease" when I have to tell others what to da.-.545 .609 .487 The act of persuading another to accept my arguments is. in itself. satis- fying and rewarding. .526 .582 .475 Having the responsibility of directing the activities of others tends to make me nervous and apprehensive. -.465 .581 .372 I like being in a position of authority so that others will look up to me. .415 .426 .404 Negative §elf~§stggm Eactor 18.20%) I often get so discouraged with myself that I wonder whether anything is worthwhile. .844 .807 .883 I often feel that I am a worthless in- dividual. .669 .659 .679 I often find myself "daydreaming". .57? .464 .717 When in a discussion. I often find it necessary to repeat myself in order to be understood. .519 .579 .466 I often worry about whether other peOple like to be with me. .508 .551 .469 I Often have apprehensive and fearful feelings about my future. .472 .528 .422 Factor structure that emerged from the second 29 Table 2. (con't): §tatement Qifficulty in Conversing.igctcrll?.59il I find it difficult to talk to people I've never met before. When I'm with a group of people. I always have trouble in finding the right things to say. I very Often have difficulty in finding things to talk about with strangers. When in a discussion. I often find it necessary to repeat myself in order to te understood. e bal Concealment etc .2 I tend to hold back when asked to state my evaluation of something. when in a discussion with others and my opinion is not in agreement with theirs. I will voice my opinion with- out hesitation. I like tO make my Opinions known to others. I won't make my opinions known until after I'm asked to state then. Beminiscenoe Eact0r516.3751 I like to reminisce about my past ex- periences. One's status in a club or organization is a measure of his personal worth. I really get upset when someone doesn't accept my point Of view. Trying to persuade someone else to accept my point of view is both stimulating and enjoyable. hon-argumentativencggFacto; (5.552) I often find myself disagreeing with another person just for the sake of argument. Even when I don't try to persuade some- one else. I usually end up doing so. Load m h2 Purity .811 .727 .904 .788 .679 .915 .771 .685 .868 .499 .579 .429 .720 .664 .780 -e711 e667 e759 -'585 0656 e521 .560 .390 .804 .793 .733 .857 ~53“ .529 .538 .526 .353 .784 .459 .646 .327 -.709 .610 .823 -.638 .497 .818 30 Table 2. (con't): Statement loading h2 Purity Non-argumentativeness Esctor Loon't) A person in an authority position must maintain his distance from his sub- ordinates or else they will take ad- vantage of him. -.408 .474 .352 Verbal Sh'ness facto .1053 Generally threats make me angry and want to retaliate. -.748 .642 When in an argument. I almost always have the last word. I enjoy listening to other peOple's ideas much more than I enjoy ex- pressing my own. gonsiderate Avthority_Factor (4.212} A person in a superior role should be considerate and Open to suggestions from his subordinates. A person in authority should use his influence for the attainment of group goals. and not for personal interests or fame. I am sure that my friends really like M me. -.638 .505 .661 .625 .467 .571 .508 .542 .469 .498 .870 .712 .502 .805 .831 .438 31 Third Questionnaire; Administration of the Objective "‘Ifistrumtfit‘IUE'tub TIEFEUIBETI‘UY'grlnftuencs7*-“ The final objective questionnaire used in this study consisted of 26 items (see Appendiij). Twenty-four of these statements were used in the second questionnaire (Appendix E) and two of them were new. These new items were numbers 3 and 24 in Table 3. The former was added to ask the respondent directly how he felt about his own persuasive ability. The latter was included because knowing another's name is one way of exerting control over him (Terwillinger. 1968. p. 317). Table 3. List of the 26 statements used in the final objective instrument. 1. If given the Opportunity. I think I would make a good leader. 2. I feel "unnatural” and “ill-at-ease" when I have to tell others what to do. 3. How good are you at persuading another person? 4. How often do you feel that you are a worthless individual? 5. Generally threats make me angry and want to retaliate. 6. I find it difficult to talk to people I've never met. 7. The act of persuading another to accept my arguments is. in itself. satisfying and rewarding. 8. I get so discouraged with myself that I wonder whether anything is worthwhile. 9. I tend to hold back when asked to state my evaluation of something. 10. When in a club. I prefer to be one of its officers. 11. How often do you start the activities of your group? 12. I like to reminisce about my past experiences. 13. How often do you have apprehensive and fearful feelings about your future? 14. Trying to persuade someone else to accept my point of view is both stimulating and enjoyable. 15. When there is a job to be done. I'd rather be in control of the situation than take directions from someone else. 32 Table 3 (can't): 16. How often do you make your Opinions known to others? 17. I must admit that I actually enjoy directing and planning the actions of others. 18. How often do you find it necessary to repeat yourself in order to be understood? 19. I would rather be a member of a club than one of its officers. 20. How good are you at getting others to do what you want done? 21. How often do you have difficulty in finding things to talk about with strangers? 22. How often do you find yourself "daydreaming"? 23. Having the responsibility of directing the activities of others makes me nervous and apprehensive. 24. How good are you at remembering names? 25. When with a group of peOple. how often do you have trouble finding the right things to say? 26. When you're in a discussion and your Opinion is not in agreement with others. how hesitant are you in voicing your own opinion? Would you voice your opinion..... Thirteen of these 26 statements used in the final objective instrument were re-worded to fit the word- scales recommended by Dodd and Gerbrick (1960). On the basis of the data they collected. these authors suggest several verbal scallettes that are perceived by respondents' in interval steps. Where possible in this final questionnaire. the statements were re-worded so that the suggested verbal anchors could be used to better meet the assumption of intervality. For example. "I usually start the activities of the group of which I'm a member." (#23 in Appendix E). was changed to read "How often do you start the activities of your group?" (#11 in Table 3). The verbal 33 steps and their recommended weights were: always (9). often (7). now a then (5). seldom (3). and never (1). (scallette E. p. 30). Another example is number 33 in Appendix E. This item was changed to read "How good are you at getting others to do what you want done?" (#20 in Table 3). Dodd and Gerbrick's scallette C (p. 30) was used as the measurement scale; it reads. very good (8). good (7). fair (5). bad (3). and very bad (2). The final questionnaire and the TAT measure of n Influence were administered to 93 students at Michigan State University enrolled in Communication 100 and 101 during the Winter term of 1970. The students were told that this was a study being conducted by the Department of Communication. It was stated that this study was simply a descriptive one. there were no deceptions or manipulations involved. and subjects were asked to respond as honestly as possible to both the TAT slides and the objective instrument. After this introduction. the TAT measure of g Influence was administered. The students were told they would be shown four slides. They were instructed to look at the slide projected for one minute before writing. They were then to write a story about what was going on in that slide following the guideline questions given on the answer sheet (see Appendices A and B). The subjects were given four minutes to write their stories. one minute for each 34 question. At the end of each minute. they were told to move on to the next question. Each slide. therefore. took five minutes to administer; the respondents just looked at the slide for one minute. and then had a minute's writing time for each of the four questions around which they were to organize their story. After they had all finished writing. the answer sheets were collected and the objective instrument was distributed. They were asked to read the instructions carefully (see Appendix F) and then to begin. When the subjects had completed the questionnaire. they were told the correlational nature of the study. the variable we were attempting to measure was discussed. and the deve10pment of the qwestionnaire was explained. The TAT stories were coded by three student coders. two graduate and one undergraduate. working independently. The intercoder reliability using Kendall's coefficient of concordance with tied ranks (Ferguson. 1959. p. 188) was significant (w-.72. x2-197.37. pp(.001). The three scores on g Influence given each subject by the orders were summed and a mean score was developed for each subject. Since the g Influence scores were assumed to be normally distributed but not at the interval level of measurement. the distribution of means was split into three groups for analysis: the tap 26% (gp24). the middle 48% (ny45). and the bottom 26% (np24). 35 The responses to the objective instrument were factor analysed. The same Factor A routine with a Kiel-Wrigley criterion of three was again used. This routine is one of the principal factor methods of factor analysis. The major feature of these methods is that the correlation matrix is expressed in the smallest number of factors. i.e. the maximum amount of variance is extracted as each factor is calculated (Keslinger. 1964. p. 661). The factor structure that emerged after six E rotations is contained in Table 4. The same factors of Leadership (13.00%). Difficulty in Conversing (12.07%). Verbal Concealment (9.26%). and Negative Self-Esteem (9.18;) were generated. In addition. two new factors emerged: Enjoy Persuading (8.17%) and Remembering (6.11%). These two new factors consisted of only two statements. however. The six factors accounted for only 57.79% of the variance in the responses to the 26 statements. Factor scores were computed for each factor except Remembering. These scores were the sum of the responses to the items that had loadings of .50 or above on that factor. - Two indices were created for the Leadership factor. however; one. Leadership-5. was the sum of only the items with loadings of .50 or above. and the other. Leadership-7. was the sum of all seven items that loaded the highest on this factor. Both of these indices were used in the correlational analyses between the objective factor scores and the TAT score of each individual. 36 Table 4. Factor structure of the responses to the 26 statements used in the final objective instrument.‘i __ §tatement Loading h2 Fugity Leadership Eactor 112.002) When in a club. I prefer to be one of its officers. .804 .728 .889 I would rather be a member of a club than one of its officers. .761 .632 .915 I must admit that I actually enjoy directing and planning the actions of others. .652 .478 .889 If given the opportunity. I think I would make a good leader. .593 .681 .517 When there is a job to be done. I'd rather be in control of the situation than take directions from someone else. .532 .578 .489 how often do you start the activities of your group? .476 .571 .397 How good are you at getting others to do what you want done? .472 .524 .425 gufficulty in Conversing Eactor (12.025) How often do you have difficulty in finding things to talk about with strangers? .776 .671 .898 I find it difficult to talk to people I've never met. .699 .524 .931 When with a group of peOple. how often do you have trouble finding the right things to say? -.685 .598 .784 How often do you find it necessary to repeat yourself in order to be understood? .639 .511 .799 If given the opportunity. I think I would make a good leader.H .523 .681 .402 Egrbalhgoncealmggt Eactgr (9.261) I tend to hold back when asked to state my evaluation of something. .755 .673 .848 How often do you make your Opinions known to others? .750 .656 .858 37 Table 4. (con't) Statement one yerbal Concealment Factor (con'tl When you're in a discussion and your opinion is not in agreement with others. how hesitant are you in voicing your own Opinion? Would you voice your Opinion . . . I feel "unnatural" and "ill-at-ease" when I have to tell others what to do.i% hegative Sel§;£steem FactgrgLQJIQEL How often do you have apprehensive and fearful feelings about your future? I get so discouraged with myself that I wonder whether anything is worthwhile How often do you feel that you are a worthless individual? Enjoy Persuading factor_18.izg] Trying to persuade someone else to accept my point of view is both stimulating and enjoyable. The act 0f persuading another to accept my argument is. in itself. satisfying and regarding. How good are you at persuading another person?H membe in aoto 6 11% How good are you at remembering names? I like to reminisce about my past ex- periences. .966 J .478 .856 .709 .624 .655 .433 -.669 .612 _Loading h2 .597 .531 .771 .530 .574 Purity .536 euBO .984 .739 ~59? .797 .809 .309 .872 .948 *Only those items which had a factor loading of .40 or above on any of the factors are listed. “*These items were not included in the score develOped for that factor. CHAPTER III RESULTS The means and standard deviations of the summed factor scores are given in Table 5. The intercorrelation matrix and the means and standard deviations of the statements used from the final questionnaire are given in Appendix F. Tables 7 and 8. Table 5. Means and standard deviations of the indices correlated with Uleman's TAT measure of:g Influence. Index Mean Standard Mean Top 263 Mean Bottomw263' Qeviation on 3 Influence on n Influence Leadership-5 24.79 4.34 25.04 24.12 Leadership-7 36.74 5.97 36.96 35.71 Verbal Concealment 16.53 3.58 16.04 16.33 Endoy Persuading 10.77 1.96 10.71 10.62 Three factor score* 64.04 9.43 63.71 62.67 Difficulty in Conversing 18.27 2.80 18.42 18.38 Negative Total Score** 95.30 9.33 95.71 93.62 Number of Clubs 5.13 2.85 5.58 4.37 Number of Offices 1.86 1.98 1.54 2.29 Office/Club Ratio 0.35 0.39 0.21 0.56 *Sum of the three factors of Leadership-7. Verbal Concealment. and Enjoy Persuading. **Sum of all five factors using Leadership-7. 38 39 Biserial correlation coefficients were run between the subjects' scores on the TAT measure of g_Inf1uence and their scores on the factor indices. The biserial correlation coefficient assumes that underlying both measures there are continuous and normally distributed characteristics. but that one variable has been measured continuously and the other dichotomously. In this case. the g Influence score. which was not assumed to be interval measurement. was the discrete variable. and the factor scores were the continuous variables. The biserial correlations were run on those subjects in the tOp and bottom 26% on the TAT measure. each comparing with the rest of the distribution. None of these correlations were significant (Table 6). Table 6. Biserial correlation coefficients between the subjects' scores on the eleven indices listed in Table 5 and their scores on Uleman'e TAT measure of g_Influence. Index T032261 03* Bottom 26% on g_Inf1uence g Influence Leadership-5 .046 .123 Leadership-7 .028 .138 Verbal Concealment -.104 ‘ .040 EDJOV Persuading -.027 .060 Three factor score ~.028 .117 Negative Self-Esteem .116 .075 40 Table 6 (con't): Index Top 263 on Bottom 26% on 9 Influence glInfluence Total Score .034 .144 Number of Clubs .128 .211 Number of Offices -.129 -.174 Office/Club Ratio -.275* -.426** *2 (.06 **p,(.01 A total score on the objective instrument was created by summing the subjects' scores on the five factor indices. The Leadership-7 score was the sum used from the leadership factor. The total score did not correlate with g Influence (Table 6). The factor scores on Leadership-7. Verbal Concealment. and Enjoy Persuading were summed to form another index because of their high a .40). The intercorrelation (r a .46. rLE - .44. Lv I'VE subjects' scores on this index also did not correlate with their 3 Influence scores (Table 6). When the subjects completed the objective instrument. they were also asked to list all the clubs to which they had belonged in high school and college. as well as the number of offices they had occupied in each (see Appendix F). The number of club memberships listed was not related to 41 Q_Influence (Table 6). Although. the respondents in the top 26% on g Influence generally listed more clubs than those in the bottom 26%. this difference was not significant (3:31.39. (lg-us, 2a (20). In coding the number of offices each subject reported. only the positions of president. vice-president. secretary. and treasurer were counted. The number of offices held by the respondent was also not related to his score on 5, Influence (Table 6). The average number of offices listed was slightly higher for those persons in the bottom 26% than those in the top 26% (Table 5). but this difference was not significant (£p1.3u. ggpué. 2p (20). This unexpected null relationship was also reported by Uleman leading him to conclude that seeking an office is not an indicator of high Q Influence individuals (1970. p. 37). So it appears that the number of offices sought or held in high school or college is not an indicator of one's influence needs. ‘ A leadership ratio was created by dividing the number of offices held by the number of club memberships listed. It was initially felt that because high 2 Influence persons are rated as more dominant by their peers (Uleman. 1965. p. 207). they might hold more offices or formal leadership positions in the clubs to which they had belonged. since their peers might urge them to assume an 42 office even though they had not sought it. Also. by controlling on the number of opportunities to hold offices. i.e. the number of club memberships. a more accurate indicant of influence behaviors may result. However. this leadership ratio (number offices/ number clubs) was negatively related to subjecte' scores on n.1nf1uence (Table 6). Those persons in the bottom 26% on 3 Influence had a higher mean ratio (£30.56) than those in the tap 26% (ff-0.21). (3:32.95. gig-us. 11.-(.01). This unexpected finding means that those persons with low influence needs had held more offices or formal leadership positions in the clubs to which they had belonged than did those persons with high influence needs. This ratio is based on positions of formal leadership. and may therefore. reflect the desire to gain a power base-~a characteristic of high a Power persons--and not the desire to exercise influence from a previously established power base. which is characteristic of high g,Influence individuals (Uleman. 1970. p. 30). The sample of 93 students consisted of 28 females and 65 males. Sex was not significantly related to a Influence (X2-4.91. ggpz. 2".10). but there was a slight tendency for females to score higher than males. The sample was further composed of 32 freshman. 26 sephomores. 27 juniors. and nine seniors. Since there were so few 43 seniors. they were added to the junicrs to make 36 upperclassmen for analysis. fl_Influence scores were independent of the respondent's year in school (X2-2.67. 9.?!“- E‘ <0 70) . A third demagraphic characteristic examined was the respondent's major field of study. The students in the sample had majors in seven different colleges within the university as coded by the MSU Catalogue (1969). The breakdown ofthe colleges represented was as follows: 32 from the College of Communication Arts. 10 each from the Colleges of Education and Social Science. 17 from the College of Agriculture and Natural Resources. four from each of the Colleges of Business. Engineering. and human Medicine. three from the College of Fine Arts. and 13 no preference students. The respondent's major field of study was not related to his score on g,Influence (Kg-7.87. dge4. ps<:10)3 but there was a slight tendency for persons in the Colleges of Business. Engineering. Human Medicine. Fine Arts. and no preference to score lower on the 3 Influence measure than those students within the other areas of study. CH PTER IV DISCUSSION The results of this factor analytic attempt to construct an objective instrument to measure Q_Influence are disappointing. None of the factor indices or their summed scores developed from three different factor analyses of three different samples correlated with the projective measure. Without other behavioral measures and using Uleman's projective test as the validation criterion. the objective instrument develOped does not measure an individual's influence needs. These results are frustrating. however. for the factor indices do differentiate persons in ways that were theoretically expected in terms of Uleman's conception of g Influence. Uleman suggested that students who had academic majors in more "person-oriented" Colleges should score higher on g,lnfluence than students in more "thing- oriented" Colleges within the University. No such relationship was found between a subject's major field of study and his TAT score on g Influence. However. when point biserial correlations were run between the respondent's major and his total objective score. it was 44 45 found that students in the College of Communication Arts had a higher mean score than the rest of the sample (rpbi"21’ £32.07. d§-9l. 2f (05). Furthermore. having a major in the College of Agriculture and Natural Resources was negatively related to one's total objective score: these students had a significantly lower mean than the other respondents (rpbi. -.26. £92.59. d£e9l. pp (02). Thus. the expected difference between students in "person" versus "thing" oriented majore--admittedly a vague and gross distinction-~was only found for scores on the objective instrument. The interpretation of these results is indeed perplexing. When using a factor analytic technique. the aim is to arrive at clusters of items that represent underlying common factors. The researcher then interprets what these factor scores actually represent on the basis of his theoretical conceptions. If. on the basis of theoretical conceptions and presuppositions. the researcher can successfully predict relations with the factor indices. then the factor scores can be said to have an "empirical. scientific reality" (Kerlinger. 1964. p. 684). It was expected that persons majoring in different colleges within the University would respond differentially to both the objective and projective measures. but differences across majors were only found 46 on the objective scores. The question then becomes what do these observed differences represent. since the objective scale did not correlate with the projective instrument. One possible answer is that the observed differences were simply chance events. If this were the case. and no other possible eXplanations for the results seemed plausible. the discussion should StOp and the researcher should go back to the drawing board. The explanation of these findings as chance events. however parsimonious. is not very satisfying or instructive. The task, then. is to look for both methodological and theoretical deficiencies that could plausibly explain the results. hethodological Problems Several methodological problems could have contributed to the findings. Over one-third of the sample were majors in the College of Communication Arts. This overpopulation of communication students gives an unrepresentative sample of the university community. Some Colleges were not represented at all and others had so few students in the study (e.g. the Colleges of Fine Arts and Engineering and Human Medicine) that nothing with any certainty can be said about these students' influence needs. This sampling bias is an obvious flaw in this study. but it could be easily a? corrected in another administration of the objective instrument. The unrepresentativeness of the sample could also help account for the experimenter's impression that students responded quite differently to the "demand characteristics" of the experimental situation. The instruments were administered to the students in their classrooms and they had no real choice but to participate. Although. they were told that no deceptions or manipulations were involved in the study. many were at best skeptical when subsequently asked to write stories about four slides. koreover. after the instruments had been completed and when the study was being discussed. several students appeared anxious because they had not taken the tasks more seriously and hOped that what they had done would be all right. For instance. one girl stated that viewing the slides and writing stories about them was "mickey mouse". A male student gave a more earthy description of the experimental task. Granted. there is no "right" way to respond to these instruments except to answer as honestly as possible. But it is the honesty or sincerity of some of the responses that was questioned by both the eXperimenter and some of the respondents. Speculation as to the effect or lack of effect of the students reactions to the eXperimental situation is #8 largely conjectural. but one intuitively felt that it may have made a difference. A third procedural deficiency which may help to explain the results is that the gambling arousal techniques used by Uleman (1965) were not used in this study. It may be the case that the Q_Inf1uence motive requires the use of stimulation procedures prior to the administration of the TAT to ensure its accurate measurement. Since Uleman does report significant differences between the aroused and non- aroused groups (1970. pp. 22-23). the failure to use arousal techniques could have resulted in an invalid measurement of subjects' internal motivational states. If so. this exploratory study has not accomplished its intended purpose and should be replicated with the addition of arousal techniques to assure valid measurement of the subjects' influence needs. gonceptual Ambiguity Even with these possible methodOIOgical sources of contamination. it is the researcher's Opinion that conceptual ambiguity is the most plausible contributor to the null relationship found between the objective and projective measures. As Uleman has continued to research and analyse this motive. his conceptions of it have broadened and changed slightly. In describing a high Q Influence person is his dissertation. the emphasis was on “9 one who enjoyed the "exercise of power for its own sake." Power is viewed by this individual as "something to be exercised and used. rather than conserved defensively. and the goal is to see one's influence on others." (Uleman. 1965. p. 207) ihis conceptualization led to the prediction that high 3 Influence persons should seek and occupy more leadership positions than persons low on this drive; Uleman did report in his dissertation that high 3 Influence persons show a slight tendency to seek elective offices (p. 219). however. in his latest article. he states that there is no relationship between E Influence and the number of offices held or sought and that these measures are not valid indicants of the £321 to influence. There was also no relationship found in this study between the number of offices held in high school or college organizations and the score of g Influence. The emphasis in his most recent article is on conceiving 3 Influence as "a kind of interpersonal effectance motive." having to do with "social competence and mastery" (1970. p. 52). In this more recent conception. influencing others is seen as rewarding in its own right because it is an "expression of one's interpersonal capabilities. or because it generally results in superior payoffs" (p. 52). Influencing others is not the defining characteristic of a high Q Influence individual. but rather 50 part of an interpersonal. persuasive style based upon self-confidence in one's own interpersonal effectiveness. The high 3 Influence individual is viewed by others. and accurately views himself. as more dominant in interpersonal relations. although not necessarily domineering (p. 65). This rather subtle change in conceptions of the motive are difficult to state and even more difficult to exemplify. since Uleman's work has predominantly involved the definition of 3 Influence by negation: i.e. by distinguishing his measure from Verhoff's n Eower. Moreover. his validation procedures have used other personality measures and inventories. concerned primarily with what the need night 92. rather than with what high g_Influence persons actually g9. Therefore. no behavioral examples or indicants have been given which would allow observation of a high a Influence individual and help objectify the conceptual definition of this motivational state. Since this change in conceptual emphasis was not known to this author until after the instruments were constructed and because there are as yet no behavioral validations of the need. it is not surprising that this eXploratory attempt at constructing an objective instrument did not prove successful. Subsequent attempts to create an objective instrument should primarily employ statements that reflect inter- personal effectiveness. self-confidence in interpersonal 51 relations. and a persuasive. positive orientation towards others. In other words. the next attempt should emphasize the interpersonal dimensions of this need and not the intraperscnal characteristics of the motive. as this attempt did. This is not to say that the latter dimension should be totally excluded. but rather that the interpersonal orientation should be more heavily stressed. however. the obvious problem involved in concluding that the emphasis should be on interpersonal effectiveness lies in determining what interpersonal effectiveness "looks like". The solution to this question and to the problems of interpretation in this study can only be determined by future research that definitely establishes a relationship between the n Influence motive and behavior: ...the utility of the 3 Influence variable to communication research depends on the accurate determination of the relationship between 3 Influence as a measure of the internal motiva- tional state and its power to predict persuasive behavior. (Christiansen. 1968. p. 42) Ihe ultimate validation of any construct must lie in its ability to predict behavior; without that validation the concept cannot have an "empirical. scientific reality." In the absence of validating evidence for either the projective or objective instrument. it cannot be determined whether either is of use to communication researchers. Future attempts at scale construction. then. must deal 52 with behavioral patterns in a variety of situations in order to establish the relationship between the projective and the objective measures. as well as the heuristic value of each in predicting communication behavior. l. Bertrand Russell. Power: a new social analysis (London: Allen & Unwin. 1938). p. 275} 2. Janos S. Uleman. "The need for influence: development and validation of the measure. and comparison with the need for power". unpublished manuscript. hSU. 1970. p. 31. 3. James S. Uleman. 1970. op. cit.. p. 58. a. James S. Uleman. "A new TAT measure of need for power". unpublished doctoral dissertation. Department of Social Relations. harvard University. 1965. p. 213. Actually. Uleman's conception of E_Inf1uence is closely related to Murray's conception of g Dominance. whom he quotes in his dissertation (p. lO)..."§ Dominance includes the desire to control one's environment. To influence or direct the behavior of Os (i.e. others) by suggestion. seduction. persuasion. or command. To dissuade. restrain or prohibit. To induce an O to act in a way which accords with one's sentiments and needs. To get Cs to cooperate. To convince an O of the ‘rightness' of one's Opinion." 5. personal conversations with Drs. Uleman and Berger. 6. Janos S. Uleman. 1970. Op. cit.. p. 26. 7. personal conversations with Dr. Berger. 8 . personal conversations with Dre. Uleman and Berger. 53 [’4‘] B FEREKCES Bevelas. A. Communication patterns in task-oriented groups. In Cartwright. D.. and Zander. A. (Eds.). Group_Dynamios. New York: Harper & Bow. 3rd edition. 1968. 503-511. larger. C. 3. Factor analytic study of dimensions of self- esteem. Unpublished Masters Thesis. Department of Communication. Michigan State University. 1966. . heed to influence and feedback regarding influence outcomes as determinants of the rela— tionship between incentive magnitude and self- persuasicn. Speech Wonggraphs. 1969. 16. 435-h02. Cartwright. D. Influence. leadership. control. In Faroh. J. G. (Ed.). Handbook 31 Organizations. Chicago: Rand Hchally and Co.. 1965. 1-47. Cartwright. D. and Zander. A. (Eds.). Group gynamics. flew York: Earper e Row. 3rd edition. 19 o. Christiansen. A. heed to influence: A predictive measure of persuasive behavior?. Unpublished tasters Thesis. Department of Communication. Kiohigan State University. 1968. Cohen. A. B. Attitudinal consequences of induced discrepancies between cognitions and behavior. kublic Qpinion Quarterly. 1960. g3. 297-318. Boutsch. M. and hrauss. R. M. Studies of interpersonal bargaining. gournal 9; Conflict Resolution. 1962. 6. 52—70. Dodd. S. C. and Cerbrick. T. R. Mord scales for degrees of opinion. language and gpeech. 1960. 1. 18-31. Ferguson. G. A. gtatisticg; Analysis in Psxchologx and Education. Law York: McCraw-Hill. 1959. 5L: 55 Eemphill. J. h. Why people attempt to leai. In Eetrullo. L. and Bess. B. (Eds.). Leadegghip and Int errorsonal Behavior. New York: Holt. Hinehart. and Winston. 1931. 201-215. hewgill. h. A. and Miller. G. R. Source credibility and to fear-arousing communication. gpeech honographs. 1965. 2. 95-101. helman. H. C. Processes of Opinion change. Public C;inion_gggrter1 . 1961. a:. 57-78. Eerlin er. F. E. groundations of fiehavioral Research. New York: Lolt. Rinehart. and Winston. 1963. hrech. 0.. Crutchfield. R. 8.. and Ballachey. E. L. Individual ;g_Society. Few York: McCraw-Hill. 1962. Leavitt. E. J. ore effects of certain corrunicaticn patterns on group performance. gourna] 0f Abnormal and Social Pyschology. 1951. #6? 38-50. PcCuire. w. J. Tte nature of attitudes and attitude change. In Lindzey. G. and Aronson. E. (Eds. ). The Bandtook 9; Social Fyschology. Egl. III. 2nd edition. Reading: Addison-wesley. 1969. 136-314. hchemar. Q. Psychological Statistics. New York: Wiley. 3rd edition. 1962. Miller. C. R. and Lobe. J. Opinionated language. cpen and close~mindedness and response to persuasive communication. Journal 2; Communication. 1967. 12. 333*391. Mulder. J. lhe power variable in communication eXperiments. Human Relations. 1960. 13. 2&1-256. Orne. K. On the social psychOIOgy of the psychoIOgical experiment: with particular reference to demand characteristics and their implications. American Psycholosis . 1962. 12. 776-783. Rosenthal. B. The effect of the experimenter on the results of :sychological research. In Maher. B. A. (Ed.). Prozrggs in Experimental Lersonalitz Research. £31. I. new York: Academic Press. 1964. Russell. E. rower: a new social analysis. London: Allen and Unwin. 193. ,. 50 Shaw. A. B. Group structure and the behavior of individuals in small groups. Journal of Esycnology. 19540. 1;. 139-149. Solomon. L. The influence of some types of power relations and game strategies upon the deveIOpment of interpersonal trust. Journal of Abnormal and gooial ksyohologx. 1960. 512‘253-230. Sterling. T. D. and Pollack. 5. V. Introduction to Statistical Data Processing. inglenood Cliffs: Prentice-hall. 1963. Strong. E. h. Strong Vocational Interest Blank for Men. 502m T399. Stanford: Stanford University Press. 19 5. lerwilliger. R. 5. Meaning and kind. new York: Oxford University iress. 196o. Thibaut. J. v. and nelley. h. H. The §ocia1 Psycholoez 32 groups. New Iork: Wiley; 1959. Irodahl. V. C. and Powell. F. A. A short-form dogmatism scale for use in field studies. Unpublished manuscript. Michigan State University. 1963. Uleman. J. S. A new IAI measure of need for power. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Department of Social fielations. Harvard University. 1965. . lhe need for influence: development and validation of the measure. and comparison with the need for power. Unpublished manuscript. Michigan State University. 1970. Verhoff. J. Development and validation of a projective measure of power motivation. Journal of Abnormal and Social PsycholOgy. 1957. 5E. 1-b. Verplank. w. 8. lhe control of the content of conversation: reinforcement of statements of Opinion. Journal 92 Abnormal and Social gsychology. 1955. 51. 663-676. weiss. w. and Fine. 8. J. Opinion change as a function of some interpersonal attributes of the communicatees. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology. 1955. 51. zuE:2~3. APPENDIX A TAT ANSWER SHEETS These are the four guideline questions around which subjects wrote their stories. 59 PICTURE ORE 1) What is happening? Who are the people? 2) what has led up to this situation? That is. what has happened in the past? 3) What is being thought? What is wanted? By whom? b) What will happen? What will be done? 60 PICTURE TWO 1) What is happening? Who are the peOple? 2) What has led up to this situation? That is. what has happened in the past? 3) What is being thought? What is wanted? By whom? b) What will happen? What will be done? 61 PICTURE THREE 1) What is happening? Who are the people? 2) What has led up to this situation? That is. what has happened in the past? 3) What is being thought? What is wanted? By whom? h) What will happen? What will be done? 62 PICTURE FOUR 1) What is happening? Who are the peOple? 2) What has led up to this situation? That is. what has happened in the past? 3) What is being thought? What is wanted? By whom? 4) What will happen? What will be done? AP PEN DIX B DESCRIPTION OF STIMULUS PICTURES USED FOR THE TAT MEASURE OF E. INFLUENCE Slide Slide Slide Slide 1: 4: 6h "'Army'--- military man instructing five other military men pointing to something like a map. Source: magazine photo- graph. selected for this study.” (Uleman. Appendix E. 1965. p. 283) "'Meeting'---a group of young men seated around a table. with one man standing outside of and away from the group. Source: hG (referred to in Atkinson. fictives in Eantasy. Action. and Societ . p. 33. picture 383)." (Uleman. Appendix E. 1965. p. 284) "'Papers'---two young men. the one standing handing papers to the seated one who is smoking. Source: ADI: Atkin- son. 1958. p. 832. picture ##." (Uleman. Appendix E. 1965. p. 28h) "'Newspaper'---man seated in easy chair reading newspaper with great interest and concern. Source: slide collection of Dr. Richard Alpert.” (Uleman. Appendix E. 1965. p. 28h) APPENDIX C DEFINITION OF SCORING CATEGORIES These brief descriptions of the ten content categories are from the scoring manual for the TAT measure of g_Influence. 66 1) Influence me or (In): scored "whenever a party (P1) acts toward party P ) in such a way that it causes P2 to react. A party can Se a person or a group of people who act together. The first action must be overt. and inten- tional or willful. So we cannot count accidents or routine behaviors as 'action'. But the geaction can be any behavior. overt or covert. caused by Pl's action." 2) Prestige (PR): scored "if a party who takes part in the influence imagery situation has high social status or prestige. Indicators of prestige include fame. wealth. and position." 3) Organization (03): scored “if an organization. or a member of an organization. is a party in an influence situation in the story. An organization is any group of peeple in a hierarchy.” 4) fig Self- e ication (NS): scored I'if there is an absencg oftdeprication. humi iation. embarrassment. belittling. etc.. of some party involved in the influence situation. The de- prication can be done by the party himself. or by the story's author. But criticism of one party by another is not considered self-deprication." 5) fig Beminiscencg (NR): scored "if there is an absence of thoughts about the past. by someone involved in the ianuence situation---thoughts about his own past experience. which have no clear implication for the party's future actions." 6) fig Dread (ND): scored "if there is an absence of fear. dread. apprehension. etc.. by a party involved in the in- fluence situation. about the future or some future action. Note that explicit denial of dread is also counted as dread . . ." Dread includes criticism of another's plans. and some explicit anxiety. doubt or hesitation about your own future plans. 7) gounteg-Beaction (CR): scored "if the influence imagery action-reaction sequence involves overt actions by both parties. which are actually carried out. and which are dis- tinct from each other. In addition. the reaction must be a 'counter-reaction' to the extent that it relates back to P1 in some way or other.” In other words. there must be an explicit feedback-loop of influence in the story. 8) onsultatio (CO): scored nwhenever the parties involved in the inf uence situation either plan some future activity. or seek and/or give advice regarding some future event." The only time advice is not scored is when it is clearly not wanted. 67 9) Threat (Th): scored "if one party carries out an act which threatens some important interest of another party. who reacts by carrying out an act to neutralize the threat. There must be a clear sequence. Crimes are threats to society." Vital interests would include money. Job security. one's health or life. 10) e aration (SE): scored "if the influence situation in- volves e ther active separation of one party from another. or action taken to keep two parties apart. The action need not be actually carried out. but need only meet the require- ments for influence imagery action. If members of the immediate family are involved. the story can't be scored for 'separation'." Such things as divorce. expulsion. boycotts or parting of company are scored as separation. These categories can be organized into the influence action sequence depicted in Figure 1. The diagram represents the basic elements of an influence interaction: i.e.: two parties. with an action-reaction sequence between them. The ,first five categories (PH. OH. NS. NR. and ND) emphasize characteristics of the parties found in high need to influence stories. The categories of Prestige and Organization make the party bigger and more important. and thereby emphasize that party's potential for influence. The absence categories (NS. NH. and ED) indicate that the parties do not minimize their own importance and influence potential by thinking less of themselves (NS). by withdrawing into the past (NR). or by cowering before an uncertain future (ND). The last four categories (CH. CO. TB. and SE) indicate a high need to nnfluence by emphasizing and elaborating on the interaction itself. CR is scored only if the reaction is explicitly directed back to the first party. indicating a Phan-‘m- --1 I L__ | PR in 68 more direct and immediate engagement between parties. Con- sultation. Threat. and Separation are scored if the inter- action is elaborated enough so that it results in clear co- operation (CC). direct antagonism or clash of interests (TH). or separation of the two parties (SE). These last three categories measure the emphasis given the interaction itself by elaborating and specifying its specific characteristics. These nine scored categories are called Emphasis Modifiers because of their elaboration and emphasis function. FIGURE 1 Diagramatic Representation of the Influence Imagery Inter- action and of the Emphasis Modifier Categories.* Party One Influence Imagery Party Two Interaction : CO (+) TH (') CR SE (on J L._......_ .... .. *p. 39 of the 3 Influence scoring manual. APPENDIX D FIRST OBJECTIVE INSTRUMENT 70 NAME OPINION PQOEILE INSIBUCTIONS: Appearing below are some statements about which people have different opinions or beliefs. Some of these statements are about the kind of person you think you are. and some are concerned with the various beliefs that you have. Please indicate the extent of your agree- ment or disagreement with each item or the extent to which it applies to you by circling the appropriate response. If you strongly agree with the statement. then circle SA. If you agree with the item. then circle A. and if you mildly or slightly agree with the Opinion. then you would circle MA for mildly agree. When you are in strong disagreement with the statement. you should circle SD for strongly disagree: if you disagree. circle D and if you mildly disagree. then circle MD. If the item is not applicable to you or if you are undecided or neutral on the issue. then you should circle N for neutral. Please move through these items quickly. We want your first impressions only. but at the same time. please be frank and honest in your responses. Remember. there are no "correct" answers for any of these statements. We are interested only in your personal opinions and beliefs about each of these statements. 1) I prefer to work alone as compared to working on committees. SA A MA N MD D SD 2) A person in authority should use his influence for the attainment of group goals. and not for personal interests or fame. SA A MA N MD D SD 3) I am often called on to smooth out disagreements between peOple. SA A PEA N MD D SD n) One's status or position is a thing to be defended against attack. SA A MA N MD D SD 71 5) When there is a Job to be done. I'd rather be in control of the situation than take directions from someone else. SA A MA N MD D SD 6) I like to reminisce about my past experiences. SA A MA N HD D SD 7) A person in an authority position must maintain his distance from his subordinates or else they will take advantage of him. SA A MA N ED D SD 8) In order to get your opinions accepted. you must be willing to compromise. SA A MA N MD D SD 9) Other people rarely come to me for advice. SA A MA N MD D SD 10) The main thing in life is for a person to want to do something important. SA A HA N MD D SD 11) I usually start the activities of the group of which I'm a member. SA A EA N ED D SD 12) I tend to have strong Opinions on things. SA A FLA N 15D D SD 13) A person must be willing to negotiate and to compromise some of his ideas in order to have his influence felt. SA A MA N MD D SD 1“) I find it very difficult to talk to people I've never met before. SA A MA N MD D SD 15) My blood boils whenever a person stubbornly refuses to admit he is wrong. SA A MA N MD D SD 16) Trying to persuade someone else to accept my point of view is both stimulating and enjoyable. SA A MA N ED D SD 73 31) At a conference or in the classroom. I prefer to sit in the first three rows. SA A HA N MD D SD 32) If given the opportunity. I think I would make a good leader. SA A MA H MD D SD 33) I very often feel that I am a worthless individual. SA A MA N MD D SD 3#) Although it is fairly easy to persuade others. I am rarely if ever persuaded by someone else's arguments. SA A MA N MD D SD 35) I very often worry about whether other people like to be with me. SA A MA N MD D SD 36) I often find myself disagreeing with another person Just for the sake of argument. SA A _ MA N MD D an 37) A person who doesn't have strong Opinions is Often more fun to talk to than someone who has very definite beliefs. SA A MA N MD D SD 38) Threats usually don't frighten me. SA A HA N ED D SD 39) I have difficulty in finding things to talk about with strangers. SA A MA , N MD D SD #0) I would rather be Just a member of a club than one of its officers. SA A MA N MD D SD #1) I am inventive and have more than my share of novel ideas. SA A MA N MD D SD #2) There is no such thing as wasted effort when you're trying to make your ideas understood and accepted. SA A MA N MD D SD #3) I enjoy listening to other people's ideas more than I like expressing my own. SA A MA N ED D SD 73 31) At a conference or in the classroom. I prefer to sit in the first three rows. SA A MA N MD D SD 32) If given the Opportunity. I think I would make a good leader. SA A MA I MD D SD 33) I very Often feel that I am a worthless individual. SA A MA N MD D SD 3#) Although it is fairly easy to persuade others. I am rarely if ever persuaded by someone else's arguments. SA A MA N MD D SD 35) I very Often worry about whether other people like to be With 1116. SA A NA N ND D SD 36) I often find myself disagreeing with another person just for the sake of argument. SA A 1 MA N MD D so 37) A person who doesn't have strong Opinions is Often more fun to talk to than someone who has very definite beliefs. SA A MA R MD D SD 38) Threats usually don't frighten me. SA A MA N ND D SD 39) I have difficulty in finding things to talk about with strangers. SA A MA _ N MD D SD #0) I would rather be just a member Of a club than one of its officers. SA A MA N MD D SD #1) I am inventive and have more than my share of novel ideas. SA A MA N MD D SD #2) There is no such thing as wasted effort when you're trying to make your ideas understood and accepted. SA A NA N ND D SD #3) I enjoy listening to other people's ideas more than I like expressing my own. SA A MA N ND D SD 7# ##) I Often find myself "daydreaming". SA A MA N MD D SD #5) In a discussion. I rarely find it necessary to repeat myself to make sure that I'm being understood. SA A MA N MD D SD #6) One way Of achieving your goals is to get yourself into a position of influence so that you can affect the decisions Of the group. SA A NA N MD D SD #7) I tend to hold back when asked to state my evaluation of something. SA A MA N MD D SD #8) When given orders. I can take and carry them out cheerfully. SA A MA N MD D SD #9) I tend to worry about my mistakes a great deal. SA A MA N MD D SD 50)lI can usually get others to do what I want done. SA A MA N MD D SD 51) When in a discussion with others. I will almost always voice my Opinion even though it is not in agreement with theirs. SA A MA N ED D SD 52) when I'm in a club. I prefer to be one of its Officers. SA A MA N MD D SD 53) I often have apprehensive and fearful feelings about my future. SA A MA N ND D SD 5#) Part of the fun of talking with others is the challenge of presenting your views convincingly. even if you don't actually convince the other person. SA A MA N MD D SD 55) I enjoy competitive activities. SA A RA N l-iD D SD 56) Generally. threats make me angry and want to retaliate. SA A MA N MD D SD 75 57) When I'm with a group of peOple. I usually have trouble finding the right things to talk about. SA A MA N MD D SD 58) One's status in a club or organization is a measure of his personal worth. SA A MA h ED D SD 59) Ran on his own is a helpless and miserable creature. SA A MA N MD D SD 60) Even when I don't try to persuade someone else. I usually end up doing so. SA A MA N MD D SD 61) I think I could prepare successful advertisements. SA A NA N ND D SD 62) It is only when a person devotes himself to an ideal or cause that life becomes meaningful. SA A NA N ED D SD 63) When I'm with a group of friends. I usually lead the conversation. r SA A EA N MD D SD 6#) I must admit that I actually enjoy directing the actions of others. SA A EA N MD D SD 65) I am good at making decisions quickly rather than after considerable thought. SA A MA N MD D SD 66) I feel "unnatural" and "ill-at-ease" when I have to tell others what to do. SA A MA N ED D SD 67) I very often feel that as an individual. I am worth a great deal. SA A EA E MD D SD 68) There are two kinds of people in this world; those who are for the truth and those who are against the truth. SA A NA N ND D SD 69} A position of power and authority should be viewed as a means toward some goal and not as an end in itself. SA A MA N MD D SD 76 70) It doesn't bother me if someone doesn't accept my point of view. SA A NA N MD D SD 71) It is often desirable to reserve judgement about what's going on until one has a chance to hear the Opinions of those one respects. SA A MA N MD D SD 72) I often get so discouraged with myself that I wonder whether anything is worthwhile. SA A NA N ND D SD 73) A person in a superior role should be considerate and open to suggestions from his subordinates. SA A MA N MD D SD 7#) Having the responsibility Of directing the activities of others tends to make me nervous and apprehensive. ' SA A NA N ND D SD 75) I often try different methods of presenting my arguments when I'm trying to convince another person to accept my point of view. SA A MA N ND D SD 76) Of all the different philosOphies which exist in this world there is probably only one which is correct. SA A MA N MD D SD 77) Even though I like to make my Opinions known. I usually don't express them until I'm asked. SA A NA N ND D SD APPE‘SDIX E SECOND OBJECTIVE INSTBUNEDT 78 NAME AGE MAJOR YEAR IN SCHOOL OPINIONNAIBE LNSTRUCIIONS: Appearing below are some statements about which peeple have different opinions or beliefs. Some of these statements are about the kind of person you think you are. and some are concerned with the various beliefs that you have. Please indicate the extent of your agreement or disagreement with each item or the extent to which it applies to you by circling the appropriate response. If you very strongly agree with the statement. then circle VSA. If you strongly agree with the item. then circle SA. and if you moderately agree with the statement presented. then you would circle MA for moderately agree. When you very strongly disagree with the statement. you should circle VSD for very strongly disagree: if you strongly disagree. circle SD and if you moderately disagree then circle MD. If the item is not applicable to you or if you are undecided or neutral on the opinion presented. then you should circle N for neutral. Please move through these items quickly. We want your first impressions only. But at the same time. please be frank and honest in your responses. Some of these items will sound quite similar. but please treat each item separately. as independent from any of the others. Remember. there are no "correct" answers for any of these statements. We are interested only in your own frank cpinion or belief about each statement. To repeat. the letters below each statement. stand for: VSA ............... very strongly agree SA eeeeeeeeeeeeeee Strongly agree MA ............... moderately agree N ............... neutral or undecided MD ............... moderately disagree SD eeeeeeeeeeeeeee Strongly disagree VSD ............... very strongly disagree 79 1) A person in authority should use his influence for the attainment of group goals. and not for personal interests or fame. VSA SA RA N MD SD VSD 2) I tend to hold back when asked to state my evaluation of something. VSA SA MA N ED SD VSD 3) Even when I don't try to persuade someone else. I usually end up doing so. VSA SA RA N FD SD VSD h) I often find myself disagreeing with another person Just for the sake of argument. VSA SA MA N ND SD VSD 5) Having the responsibility of directing the activities of others tends to make me nervous and apprehensive. VSA SA MA N ND SD VSD 6) Generally. threats make me angry and want to retaliate. VSA SA MA N ND SD VSD 7) When in a discussion with others and my own Opinion is not in agreement with theirs. I will voice my own opinion without hesitation. VSA SA EA N ED SD VSD 8) If_given the Opportunity. I think I would make a good leader. VSA SA EA N MD SD VSD 9) I find it difficult to talk to people I've never met before. VSA SA EA N MD SD VSD 10) I very often have difficulty in finding things to talk about with strangers. VSA SA EA N ED SD VSD 80 11) A person in a superior role should be considerate and open to suggestions from his subordinates. VSA SA MA H MD SD VSD 12) It is actually quite easy to persuade another person. VSA SA MA N ED SD VSD 13) I am sure that my friends really like me. VSA SA NA N MD SD VSD 1“) When I'm with a group of peOple. I always have trouble in finding the right things to say. VSA SA RA N ED SD VSD 15) When in an argument. I almost always have the last word. VSA SA MA N ED SD VSD 16) I feel "unnatural" and "ill-at-ease" when I have to tell others what to do. VSA SA EA N ND SD VSD 17) I really get upset when someone doesn't accept my point of view. VSA SA EA N MD SD VSD 18) I often find myself "daydreaming". VSA SA EA N MD SD VSD 19) I won't make my Opinions known until after I'm asked to state them. VSA SA EA N ED SD VSD 20) I like being in an authority position so that others will look up to me. VSA SA MA N MD SD VSD 21) I Often get so discouraged with myself that I wonder whether anything is worthwhile. VSA SA RA A MD SD VSD 81 22) I often feel that I am a worthless individual. VSD SD ED N MA SA VSA 23) I usually start the activities of the group of which I'm a member. VSD SD MD R NA SA VSA 24) I must admit that I actually enjoy directing the actions of others. VSD SD MD N RA SA VSA 25) I often worry about whether other people like to be with me. VSA SA FA N VD SD VSD 26) I would rather be Just a member of a club than one of its officers. VSD SD MD N HA SA VSA 27) I often have apprehensive and fearful feelings about my future. VSA SA WA N ED SD VSD 28) I like to make my Opinions known to others. VSD SD RD N MA SA VSA 29) One's status in a club or organization is a measure of his personal worth. VSD SD MD N MA SA VSA 30) When there is a Job to be done. I'd much rather be in control of the situation than take directions from someone else. VSD SD MD N SA SA VSA 31) I like to reminisce about my past experiences. VSA SA NA N MD SD VSD 82 32) Trying to persuade someone else to accept my point of view is both stimulating and enjoyable. VSA SA MA N ED SD V39 33) I am good at getting others to do what I want done. VSA SA MA N ND SD VSD 3#) when in a club. I want to be one of its officers. VSD SD MD N HA SA VSA 35) I enjoy listening to other peOple's ideas much more than I enjoy expressing my own. VSA SA HA H MD SD VSD 36) The act of persuading another to accept my arguments is. in itself. satisfying and rewarding. VSA SA MA N ED SD VSD 3?) When in a discussion. I Often find it necessary to repeat myself in order to be understood. VSD SD MD N MA SA VSA 38) A person in an authority position must maintain his distance from his subordinates or else they will take advantage of him. VSD SD MD A MA SA VSA APPEI‘xDIX F FINAL OBJECTIVE INSTRUMEIYT 84 STUDEAT KUMBER AGE SEX MAJOR MINOR YEAR IE SCHOOL: FRESH SOPB JUNIOR SENIOR EXPECTED OCCUPATION List the clubs or organizations Of which you are or have been a member. mentioning the offices you've held in each. INSERUCEIODS: 0n the following pages are statements about which people have different Opinions or beliefs. host of these statements concern the ideas and feelings you have about yourself. Each statement is followed by five or seven alternative answers; please check the one which you feel best represents your feelings toward yourself. Some of the statements require you to make some rather difficult judgements about yourself; try to answer these as objectively and as honestly as possible. However. you should move through these items quickly giving your first impression. A few of these statements will sound quite similar. but you should treat each statement as separate from all the other statements. 1) 2) 3) h) 5) 55 If given the Opportunity. I think I would make a good 193C181. e very strongly agree strongly agree moderately agree indifferent. neutral moderately disagree strongly disagree very strongly disagree I feel "unnatural" and "ill-at-ease" when I have to tell others what to do. very strongly disagree strongly disagree moderately disagree indifferent. neutral moderately agree strongly agree very strongly agree How good are you at persuading another person? very good good fair bad very bad how often do you feel that you are a worthless individual? always often now and then seldom never Generally. threats make me angry and want to retaliate. very strongly agree strongly agree moderately agree indifferent. neutral moderately disagree strongly disagree very strongly disagree 86 6) I find it difficult to talk to people I've never met. very strongly disagree strongly disagree moderately disagree indifferent. neutral moderately agree strongly agree very strongly agree 7) The act of persuading another to accept my argument is. in itself. satisfying and rewarding. ) very strongly agree strongly agree moderately agree indifferent. neutral moderately disagree , strongly disagree very strongly disagree 8) I get so discouraged with myself that I wonder whether anything is worthwhile. always often now and then seldom never 9) I tend to hold back when asked to state my evaluation of something. very strongly disagree strongly disagree moderately disagree indifferent. neutral moderately agree strongly agree very strongly agree 10) When in a club. I prefer to be one of its officers. very strongly agree strongly agree moderately agree indifferent. neutral moderately disagree strongly disagree very strongly disagree 87 11) How often do you start the activities Of your group? never seldom now and then Often always 12) I like to reminisce about my past experiences. very strongly disagree 7 strongly disagree moderately disagree indifferent. neutral moderately agree strongly agree very strongly agree IOE F§E$f 13) How often do you have apprehensive and fearful feelings about your future? always often now and then seldom never 1h) Trying to persuade someone else to accept my point of view is both stimulating and enjoyable. very strongly agree strongly agree moderately agree indifferent. neutral moderately disagree strongly disagree very strongly disagree 15) When there is a job to be done. I'd rather be in control of the situation than take directions from someone else. very strongly agree strongly agree moderately agree indifferent. neutral moderately disagree strongly disagree very strongly disagree 88 16) how often do you make your Opinions known to others? always often now and then seldom never 17) I must admit that I actually enjoy directing and planring the actions of others. very strongly agree strongly agree moderately agree indifferent. neutral moderately disagree strongly disagree very strongly disagree 18) How often do you find it necessary to repeat yourself in order to be understood? never seldom now and then often always 19) I would rather be a member of a club than one Of its officers. very strongly disagree strongly disagree moderately disagree indifferent. neutral moderately agree strongly agree very strongly agree 20) How good are you at getting others to do what you want done? very good good fair bad very bad 21) 22) 23) 2a) 25) 26) 89 How Often do you have difficulty in finding things to talk about with strangers? always often now and then seldom never How often do you find yourself "daydreaming?" never 1 seldom now and then often always having the responsibility of directing the activities of others makes me nervous and apprehensive. very strongly disagree strongly disagree moderately disagree indifferent. neutral moderately agree strongly agree very strongly agree How good are you at remembering names? very good 8 good fair bad very bad When with a group of peOple. how Often do you have trouble finding the right things to say? never seldom now and the often always When you're in a discussion and your Opinion is not in agreement with others. how hesitant are you in voicing your own Opinion? Would you voice your Opinion.. ' without hesitation __181_ with little hesitation A3)_ with some hesitation Afifi 211;. with great hesitation __12 9O Table 7. Means and standard deviations Of the statements used to form the five factor indices in the analysis. Standard Statement Mean Leviation Leadership Factor When in a club. I prefer to be one of its officers. #.74 1.35 I would rather be a member Of a club than one of its officers. I must admit that I actually enjoy di- recting and planning the actions Of others. If given the Opportunity. I think I would make a good leader. When there is a Job to be done. I'd rather be in control Of the situation than take directions from someone else. How Often do you start the activities of your group? How good are you at getting others to do what you want done? Qifficultz in Qonversing factor How Often do you have difficulty in finding things to talk about with strangers? I find it difficult to talk to peOple I've never met. When with a group Of people. how Often do you have trouble finding the right things to say? How Often do you find it necessary to repeat yourself in order to be under- stood? !erbal goncealment factor I tend to hold back when asked to state my evaluation of something. How often do you make your Opinions known to others? When you're in a discussion and your Opinion is not in agreement with Others. how hesitant are you in voicing your own Opinion? Would you voice your Opinion . . . “.55 “-77 5.“? 5.26 5.67 6.28 h.14 5-03 4.39 b.70 h.7i 6.55 5-27 1.12 1.26 0.8h 1.26 1.36 1.16 1-77 1-59 1.27 1.13 1.66 1.1“ 1.70 91 Table 7 (can't): Standard Statement Mean Qeviation yeggtive §elf~§steem ggctor How Often do you have apprehensive and fearful feelings about your future? 4.87 1.87 I get so discouraged with myself that I wonder whether anything is worthwhile. 3.93 1.81 How Often do you feel that you are a worthless individual? h.17 1.54 ggjoz Persuading Facts; Trying to persuade someone else to accept my point of view is both stimulating and enjoyable. 5.30 1.12 The act of persuading another to accept my argument is. in itself. satisfying and rewarding. 5.“? 1.06 aways m. Huaesoownewsnpos spawns on Hmonon ensuesesna.e Ho » p p H up No ~m m we mm m we we we» m : ww we mom we emu com » mow :9» umm pm mm: :mu 6:» sum H» mm» cum use mow New mm news nmmp upmm uuue seem semu acom pm -mou -oeu -Hmu uppm -mo» --m -uwm m we» woo pus uu~ use Upm com .mu »m pee ewe mmm so: pmm was mum -poe Hum -HNm uoew cm: mm »»m Npo Haw mmm New umm mum umu» as» nco~ u-m cm» as . pm Hum upuo -om» uomu uomo pew aomm moo cop pm: ope umqmunmmmnummm m some -moo awed umoo ape» -ome uwmm mmm -puo emu new umwe -Hu» uppm cm» s owe -pmo nose used -Hmw -omq spew mm» -Hum mmu mm» -mom -Hmm -cuu a N mom a. as uwm new New use cum ems es» usme cop name upem New cum saw no N -pap a N» o, u use mom mmm do: use mom up» uouu sum -oew ups» mom was pmm omo owe -Hoo mom in. madness. «was .mom. Nsfiouu .H. masons“. 255 .qu. wle» muuaunulmmm IHILILIIHJIIIWHIH 293 03