”2,1,: ,5, ,+

was LIBRARY *

Michigan State
University

 

 

 

ROOM HQ: Ni L‘s”

ROW USE ONLY

. _ t; ,I _V fig“.

 

ww

 

 

F - V _ "Aa—m-fiA.‘

ABSTRACT

CONSTRUCT VALIDITY AND TEST CORRELATES OF
BERNE'S CHILD EGO STATES

by Howard K. Porter

Eric Berne's differentiation between Natural Child
(NC) and Adapted Child (AC) ego states is basically that NC
functioning is characterized by impulsive self—indulgence
and resistance to authority while AC functioning is charac—
terized by impulse inhibition and fear of authority. This
distinction was explored by having instructors of an under-
graduate Study Methods course classify their students into
categories representing S's predominant ego state then com—
paring the groups' performances on relevant personality
indexes. The instructors used impressions gained from con—
tact with S during 20 twice weekly class sessions as a basis
for classifying g as Natural Child (NC), Adapted Child (AC)
or Cannot Say (CS). These classifications were very stable
over an eight week interval.

Selected personality tests were administered to 194
.§s enrolled in nine sections (three per instructor) of the
course. All §s completed the MMPI Psychopathic deviate (Pd)

and Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability (SDS) scales. A

Howard K. Porter

true—false version of LaForge's Interpersonal Checklist (ICLL
providing Lov (for love-hate factor) and Dom (for dominance—
submission factor) scores was completed by 165 of the §s.

It was hypothesized that the NC category would be
(associated with higher Pd and Dom scores, (reflecting re—
bellious and dominating tendencies) but lower SDS and Lov-
scores, (reflecting conforming and acceptant tendencies)
than the AC category while the CS category would be associ—
ated with scores between the two extremes. These pre—
dictions were confirmed for the ICL Dom and Lov factors and
for males only on the Pd scale. The SDS did not reliably
differentiate the categories.

Beyond supporting the construct validity of Berne's
NC and AC concepts, the findings suggest that relatively un-
trained raters can effectively employ these formulations to
meaningfully discriminate two substantial and distinctive
subgroups of students sufficiently concerned about their aca-
demic problems to enroll in a special course. A more hetero-
geneous sample and more attention to the effects of cultur-
ally imposed role behaviors would probably have produced
clearer differences. Different approaches may be required
to most effectively help people with these different self-
defeating behavior patterns. Research to further identify

personality scale correlates of the other ego states

Howard K. Porter

conceptualized by Berne appears promising, particularly if
it uses comprehensive and behaviorally oriented techniques

like the ICL.

CONSTRUCT VALIDITY AND TEST CORRELATES OF

BERNE'S CHILD EGO STATES

BY

Howard K. Porter

A THESIS

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

MASTER OF ARTS

Department of Psychology

1966

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to acknowledge the help and support
given me by my advisory committee, especially the chairman,
Dr. John Hurley, who was a source of advice and encourage—
ment even before the research was planned. I would also
like to thank my fellow Psy 101 instructors who helped
gather data and my friends Paul O'Grady and Jim Morrison who

gave invaluable help in the design and statistical analysis.

ii

INTRODUCTION

THE PROBLEM

METHOD

Procedure

RESULTS

DISCUSSION

SUMMARY

REFERENCES

APPENDIX A

APPENDIX B

TABLE OF CONTENTS

iii

Page

10
ll
13
21
27
29
3O

35

Table

LIST OF TABLES

Stability of classification over eight
weeks

Interscale correlations (N = 165)

Summary of SDS and Pd scores of the total
sample (N = 194) . . . . . . .

Summary of scores from §s giving complete
data . . . .

Summary of analysis of variance of scores
for all measures

iv

Page

14

15

17

18

20

INTRODUCTION

Eric Berne (1961; 1963) has developed a theory of
interpersonal interaction which evolved from his experiences
as a psychotherapist. The basis of the theory is that at
any given time a person functions in one of three major ego
states. The nature of interpersonal interaction is de-
termined by the functioning ego states of the people involved-

An ego state may be defined " . . . operationally as
a set of coherent behavior patterns; or pragmatically, as a
system of feelings which motivates a related set of behavior
patterns" (Berne, 1961, p. 17). Ego states provide con-
sistency and organization for the individual's dealings with
reality. The three major states are the archeopsychic or
Child, the exteropsychic or Parent, and the neopsychic or

Adult. The terms Child, Parent, and Adult, when capitalized

 

usually refer to the archeopsychic, exteropsychic, or neo—
psychic states, respectively. These are ways of experiencing
and dealing with reality which were first used as a child,
are introjects of perceived parental ego states, or which
are concerned only with objective reality testing.

The functioning of all three states assists reality
adjustment but the Adult is most oriented to objective, ex—

ternal reality. The behavior of a person in this state is

similar to a data processor which assesses facts and acts
accordingly. The moral implications of an act and the
emotional needs of other people are not considered unless
they may directly affect the individual.

Parental states represent introjections of perceived
ego states of the person's parents. There are two general
manifestations of Parental ego states, the Nuturing Parent
and the Prejudicial Parent. The Nuturing Parent is seen in
expressions of sympathy and helping or caring for others.
The Prejudicial Parent is displayed in attempts to maintain
or impose arbitrary standards of behavior in an authoritarian,
dogmatic manner.

The archeopsychic states are usually called Child
states because they are reproductions of states experienced
while the person was a child. A Child state is generally
seen in one of two forms, Natural Child or Adapted Child.
Natural Child functioning is seen in behavior which is im-
pulsive or directed toward the removal of controls. The
Adapted Child is expressed in behavior inferentially under
the control of a Prejudicial Parent or some external
authority.

Natural Child functioning is seen in behavior which
is impulsively self-indulgent and playful or which is aimed
at the removal and/or frustration of external authority.
When things are going his way he tends to be extremely happy;

when frustrated he tends to be extremely angry and to hate

the frustrating agent. Emotional reactions are quick and
intense. A person functioning in this state is likely to
be extreme in his demands for favors and attention. There
is little impulse control or ability to delay gratification.
In others he will probably elicit feelings of irritation,
disgust, or vicarious pleasure because of his childlike
behavior.

Adapted Child functioning is seen in submissive,
compliant, and withdrawing behavior. Although a person in
any Child state will show immaturity of thought and judge-
ment, the Adapted Child will tend to inhibit any direct im—
pulse expression. Most of his behavior is controlled by a
fear of disturbing others. His typical emotions are guilt
or anxiousness because of the possibility that others may
withhold affection or approval. He tends to be very
cautious and restrained in the expression of his feelings,
to see others as authorities, and to seek and follow their
advice. In other people he tends to elicit feelings of
superiority and nuturance along with advice and orders.

It is probable that people do not function an equal
amount of time in each of the states. Rather, the state be-
ing used at a given time is a function of the situation, the
individual's needs and relative strengths of ego states, and
the perceived states of others. In some people an ego state
may tend to function most of the time even when functioning

is inappropriate. It may well be that the majority of

people who have behavioral or personality problems do so be—
cause of inappropriate ego state functioning. If this is
true, then it would be valuable to be able to determine in
which state these people habitually function so that treat-
ment could be directed toward enabling them to have more

variety of behavior.

THE PROBLEM

If people habitually function in one state, it should
be possible to detect the influence of this state in many
different situations. Since there are similarities between
people in the functioning of any state, e.g. Natural Child,
it should be possible to characterize some individuals as
being a certain ego state type. People belonging to differ—
ent categories should differ in their responses to the same
situation. One way to check differences in responding to
very similar situations is to check differences in scores on
the same test.

Descriptions of the characteristics of people who
score high on the Psychopathic Deviate scale (Pd) of the
Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory but who are not
considered psychopaths are similar to descriptions of Natural
Child functioning. Hovey (1953) found that high-scoring
student nurses were seen as active, aggressive, self-
confident and enthusiastic by their supervisors. This de— ..
scription is similar to that expected of the Natural Child ,
state. In the same study, low-scoring students were seen as
willingly accepting instructions, perservering, and not
having stimulating personalities, thus describing character—

istics similar to the Adapted Child.

Carkhuff (1962) gives descriptions of high— and low—
scorers which are derived from several studies. People who
score high are described as resenting rules and regulations,
hostile and aggressive in interpersonal relations, exhi—
bitionistic, frank, assertive, and having a wide range of
interests. Low scoring people are described as conventional,
submissive, compliant, and overly accepting of authority.
These characteristics of high-scoring people are similar to
the characteristics of the Natural Child state; those of the
low-scoring people are similar tothe Adapted Child.

Since descriptions of people who obtain high scores
on the Pd are very similar to descriptions of Natural Child
functioning, people classified as functioning in the Natural
Child state (NC) most of the time would be expected to score
high on the Pd scale. Descriptions of peOple who score low
on the Pd are similar to Adapted Child functioning, there—
fore people classified as being in the Adapted Child state
(AC) most of the time would be expected to obtain low Pd
scores. It was hypothesized that if §s were classified as
NC, AC or CS where CS indicated those §s for whom no single
state could be said to be dominant, some state other than a
Child state was dominant, or there was not adequate knowledge
for classification, then the NC group would obtain higher Pd
scores than the CS and AC groups and that the CS group would

have higher scores than the AC group.

Crowne and Marlowe (1960) developed a scale which
seems to measure social desirability in the sense of wanting
to appear in a socially approved light or wanting to please
authorities. Crowne and Strickland (1961) and Strickland
and Crowne (1962) found that §s who scored high on the
Marlowe—Crowne Social Desirability Scale (SDS) were in—
fluenced more by social reinforcement or social pressure
than_§s who had scored lower. These studies seem to indi-
cate that the SDS is valid for measuring a need for social
approval or reactivity to social pressure both of which are
characteristic of the Adapted Child.

Since Adapted Child functioning and people who ob-
tain high SDS scores, are characterized by concern with
social approval, people classified AC would be expected to
score high on the SDS. If the SDS scoring is reversed so
that it correlates positively with the Pd scale and so that
the hypotheses would be similar, the AC §s would be expected
to obtain low SDS scores. It was hypothesized that §s
classified AC would score lower on the SDS, as scored for
this study, than §s classified NC or CS; it was also hy-
pothesized that §s classified NC would score higher than §s
not assigned to either Child state category.

The Interpersonal Checklist (ICL) can be used to pro-
vide a description of a person which takes into account many
different areas or types of behavior (Leary, 1957). Leary

has illustrated how it can be used to predict or describe

 

 

the interpersonal relations in a group of industrial managers
(Leary, 1956, ch. 25) and in a psychotherapy group (Leary,
1956, ch. 26). It is possible to derive two summary scores
by weighting scores on the various sectors by their trigo—
meteric distance from the principle axes, which are theo—
retically perpendicular. These summary scores are the
Dominance-Submission (Dom) score and the Love—Hate (Lov)
score. LaForge (1963) has presented the results of a factor
analysis of ICL scores from 209 college students. This an—
alysis indicates that two factors which account for most of
the variance in Dom and Lov scores also account for most of
the variance within the test.

Since the outstanding characteristic of Adapted Child
functioning is submissiveness or compliance, it was hypothe-
sized that §s classified AC would obtain lower Dom scores on
the ICL than §s classified NC or CS. Since one of the
characteristics of Natural Child functioning is resistance
to being placed in a submissive position, it was hypothesized
that §s classified NC would obtain higher Dom scores than §s
classified AC or CS.

The terms cooperative and overconventional might be

 

used to describe Adapted Child functioning but they are also
used to describe the positive end of the Love-Hate axis of

the ICL; aggressive might be used to describe Natural Child

 

functioning but it is also used to describe the negative end

of the Love—Hate axis. Therefore, it was hypothesized that

I§s classified AC would have high Lov scores and SS classi-
fied NC would have low Lov scores while the CS §'s scores
would be between these two extremes.

To summarize the hypotheses: it was predicted that
if §s are classified as belonging to NC, AC or CS categories,
the NC_§s would have higher Pd, SDS, and Dom scores than the
other two groups but would have lower Lov scores; the AC §s
would have lower Pd, SDS, and Dom scores and higher Lov

scores than the other two groups.

METHOD

Students from a course in methods of study (PSY 101)
were chosen as Ss. The course provided group counseling for
undergraduate students at Michigan State University. Typi-
cally students enrolled in this course because of a variety
of academic difficulties, college adjustment problems,
personal problems, or such problems were anticipated by the
student, an advisor or a counselor. Since immaturity was as—
sumed to contribute to their problems and since immaturity
may be a result of inappropriate Child state functioning,
this group of students was selected as the sampling
population.

The SDS and Pd scales were completed by l94_§s (80
men, 114 women). Their ages ranged from 17.75 to 24.83
years with a median age of 18.5 years. Of these gs 165 (64
men, 191 women) completed the ICL. The 29 SS for whom there
was not complete data either failed to finish the ICL or to
identify their answer sheet. The range and median of the
ages of §s having complete data were assumed to be the same
as the slightly larger sample of which they were subgroup.

Ninety—four percent of the SS were freshmen.

lO

11

Procedure

 

The tests were administered during the final class
meeting. The Pd and SDS were presented as one test called

the Biographical Inventory (reproduced in Appendix A) and

 

responses were recorded on a single answer sheet. After the
Pd and SDS were completed, a checklist was administered
which included the ICL items randomly mixed with some items
from Gough's adjective checklist which Hall (1963) had found
useful for discriminating between Adults' descriptions of
"good" vs "bad" children, (reproduced in Appendix B). How-
ever, only the ICL items were scored. A separate IBM answer
sheet was used for ICL responses. Before both tests_§s were
told to read each item, decide if it was true or false if
applied to them, and to record the answer on the appropriate
sheet. If there were any questions about the applicability
of an item they were told to decide if it was mainly or
usually true or false.

Three Psy 101 instructors classified the_§s from
their classes according to what ego state the § seemed to
function in most of the time. If Natural Child seemed to be
the dominant state, S was classified NC; if Adapted Child
was predominant, § was classified AC; if some other state,
e.g. Adult, was predominant, or if the instructor was un-
certain which was most prominent, the § was classified Can—
not Say (CS). The instructors were told to consider §'s

behavior in class, reported behavior out of class, apparent

12

feelings and attitudes, and the reactions they seemed to
elicit from others. The classifications were made during
the same week the_§s took the tests.

The instructors were contacted before the term began
and asked to cooperate. They were given brief descriptions
of the Child states and told they would be asked to name
their students who seemed to fit the descriptions. Twice
during the ten week academic quarter_§ and the other two
instructors met and discussed how the Child state de-
scriptions might fit some of their students. If there was
any disagreement between E and an instructor over which
category a student would best fit, this disagreement was
discussed until a categorization was agreed upon. The in-
structors and a supervisor attended weekly sessions to talk
about the groups and individual students. How a particular
student might be classified was raised several times during
‘these sessions to ascertain ifig and the instructor would
agree. There seemed to be few disagreements on classifi-

cations during the practice sessions.

RESULTS

Approximately eight weeks after the original classifi-
cations the instructors read a list of SS who had been in
their groups and assigned each § to the NC, AC, or CS cate-
gories. A comparison of the first and second classifications
is shown in Table 1. There was no change in classification
of 65% of the gs. Chi Squares comparing first and second
ratings were computed for each instructor and for the in-
structors as a group. All were significant beyond the .001
level indicating that the classifications were very
reliable.

Nine weeks after the initial classification data

were collected, the Biographical Inventory was given to 51

 

different students enrolled for Psy 101. A retest was given
one week later. The correlation between test and retest for
the SDS was .85; the test-retest correlation for the Pd
scale was .87.

The data from the 165 SS giving complete data were
used to compute correlations between the tests. These inter-
test correlations are shown in Table 2. The correlations be—
tween Lov scores and the other measures were significant be-

.yond the .05 level as was the correlation between SDS and

13

14

 

 

 

Table 1. Stability of classification over eight weeks.
No One Ce11* Two Cell*
Rater N Change Difference Difference
E 65 47 18 0
ED 65 37 26 2
P0 64 42 15 7
All Raters 194 126 59 9

 

*One cell differences were changes from a Child
category to Cannot Say or from Cannot Say to a Child; two
cell differences were changes from one Child category to
another.

 

 

 

Table 2. Interscale correlations (g = 165)
Dom Lov
.04 —.48*
.07 —.55*

 

l6

Pd; neither of the other two correlations (Dom vs Pd; Dom vs
SDS) were significantly different from zero.

Before the rest of the data were analyzed, the data
from the 194 SS who completed at least the Pd and SDS were
analyzed. The means, variances, and t ratios for scores from
these two tests are shown in Table 3. All differences were
in the predicted direction except a trivial Pd reversal for
females. Since the hypotheses predicted that the greatest
difference should be found between the NC and AC means, only
the differences between these groups were tested. A pre—
liminary t test indicated the difference between mean scores
(bf the sexes was significant (P < .05) so the data were ana-
lynzed separately; F max tests indicated the variances were
fmnnogeneous. Only the NC and AC means of the male's Pd
SCKDres were significantly different.

The Dom and Lov scores of the ICL were computed by
IHSing the formulas suggested by LaForge (1963, p. 42) except
thiit the weights were rounded to the nearest tenth. The Pd,
E3DS, Dom, and Lov scores from the 165 SS for whom the data
WeEre complete are summarized in Table 4. Most differences
bertween means were in the predicted direction. Hartley's F
IUaD< test indicated that the assumption of variance homo—
genneity was justified for all four sets of data.

The data from each test were used for a separate 2x3

(53ex x Group) analysis of variance with sums of squares ad—

jklsted for unequal cell frequencies by a least—squares

l7

 

 

 

 

Table 3. Summary of SDS and Pd scores of the total sample
(N 194).
SDS Pd
N 3 .E 52 .3
Male:
NC 24 19.46 28.52 .31 20.87 30.37 2.78*
CS 23 17.43 15.80 17.52 17.52
AC 33 17.64 26.18 16.91 16.87
Female:
NC 39 17.26 26.51 .74 15.95 13.79 0.0
CS 39 17.54 26.46 16.87 31.06
AC 36 15.36 17.61 15.97 20.77
”P < .05.

.mo. v m roe A oz.

 

 

mm.mo em.m @m.mm Hm.o hm Ofl
mo.vo om.m mm.Hm 00.0 mm mo ”Hmuoe
mm.©h mv.¢ ©0.Hm Vm.m mm OZ
mm.mm na.h n¢.mm mm.ml H©.om HN.©H mm.ma nm.ma mm 04
oo.on ©¢.m Hm.mm on.o| mn.mm mm.©a mv.v~ vm.vH wm m0 "mHmEmm
mn.¢> SH.© mm.om vh.o om.¢a mo.oa om.mm w©.©H em 02
oh.mm Hm.m mo.mv mm.m Hm.mm emo.oa Hm.©m mm.ma vm Um
oo.mm Hm.a mm.mm mo.m mm.mm mm.na mm.ma mm.ha ma .mo "mamz
mm.m© oo.a mm.mm mm.¢ mm.mm eva.om mm.mm om.ma am 02

m m m m .I

m m N m N m m M 2

pm

 

 

.mumo mumHQEoo ®CH>Hm mw.EoLw mmuoom mo hhmE83m

.e magma

19

solution suggested by Winer (1962, pp. 292—293). Since this
was an exploratory study, the significance level was set at
.1. These analyses are summarized in Table 5. The effect
due to sex differences was significant for all sets of data
with men consistently obtaining higher Pd, SDS, and Dom
scores and the women obtaining higher Lov scores. None of
the interaction effects were significant.

There were no significant effects on the SDS and Pd
scores associated with group differences. Since a differ—
ence between male NC and AC groups on Pd scores had been
found, a t test was made on the difference between these
Table 4 means despite the insignificant F. The difference
was significant beyond the .05 level.

The classification effect was statistically signifi-
cant (P < .1) for both Dom and Lov scores. The mean scores
of the combined sexes in each category were compared to
clarify this effect. The mean Dom score of the NC group was
significantly greater than the mean of the AC group (t = 2.08,
P < .05) but neither Child mean was statistically different
from the CS mean. The mean Lov score of the AC group was
greater than the NC mean (t = 1.70, P < .1) but the differ-
ences between the CS mean and the NC or AC means were not

significant.

20

.Ho. can» mmma m44

.H. amen mmma m4

 

 

 

 

ma.e6 mm.mm mm.mm mm.em mma nouns
we. om.am we. mm.nm mo. Hm.m eo.m mm.om m coauumumucH
4mm.m He.oma 4mm.m om.moa oa.a mn.mm mo.a me.mm N mmauoomumo
44ea m we.mao .4mo.om mo.mmm .4He.n oo.aem .4mm.ma ma.oma a xmm
m m2 m w: m m: m m: we monsom
>04 EOQ mmm om
.mmuommme Ham Mow mouoom mo mocmHum> mo mam>amcm wo xumEEom .m mHQmH

DISCUSSION

Instructors' classifications were quite stable de—
spite an eight week period between first and second classifi—
cations and despite probable interference effects from be-
coming familiar with new groups of very similar students.
This stability indicates the classifications were reliable
for each instructor and is a step toward establishing the
validity of the ego state categories. The fact that the NC
means differed from AC means on Dom, Lov, and male Pd scores
in the predicted ways suggests validity of the classifi—
cations and theory. Perhaps global, impressionistic judge-
ments of dominant ego state by trained observers would be
more valid than test scores because of normal fluctuations
in ego state functioning.

Unless the definitions of the categories and train-
ing of the classifiers permitted categorizations on the basis
of short term impressions, the use of global judgements
might be impractical. An important variable affecting the
classification accuracy may be the judges‘s expectations Of
sex role behaviors, e.g. any departure from docility in a
woman may be taken as evidence of Natural child functioning.

This factor might be controlled by having the judges be

21

22

aware of such expectations and/or by developing clear cri—
teria for defining a behavior as being evidence of the
functioning of a certain state.

The youthfulness of the sample and the fact it was
selected because the §s had problems related to immaturity
may mean the classification task was more difficult and less
accurate than if a more heterogeneous sample had been used.
It may have been more difficult for the instructors to
differentiate the normal immaturity of 18 year-olds from
Child state functioning. The general validity of the
classifications was assumed but there were probably S with—
in each category who had been misclassified. Such classifi-
cation errors decrease the probability of significant
between—group differences.

The moderate correlation between SDS and Pd suggests
that they cannot be regarded as measuring the same thing.
Although the correlation between Dom and Lov did differ from
chance, the amount of common variance is so low (2%) that
they can be most appropriately viewed as independent measures.
Dom appears to measure a distinct aspect of ego state
functioning because of the low (Lov) or nonsignificant (Pd
and SDS) correlations with the other measures. Since Lov
correlated moderately with all other scores assumed to be
measures of Child functioning, this variable seems to be po-
tentially the most useful single measure of differences in

child functioning.

23

Before a single test which can be used to differ-
entiate the Child states is develOped it may be necessary to
devise some method for combining measures of various aspects
of ego state functioning. An instrument designed to reflect
differences in many types of behavior, like the ICL, seems
to offer a fruitful approach. Since Lov and Dom scores both
differentiate the NC and AC categories, a single composite
score might be derived which can effectively differentiate
these categories. Such a composite score may also be sensi—
tive enough to discriminate the Child categories from the
general population.

In the absence of significant interaction effects, it
may be concluded that the ability of Dom and Lov to differ-
entiate NC and AC is not restricted to a single sex. How-
ever, the consistent sex effect suggests the advisability of
using different cut—off scores for the sexes.

Mean Pd score differences between male NC and AC
claSSifications indicate Pd is potentially useful for differ-
entiating AC college men from NC men. Since the main
classification effect and the interaction effect were not
significant in the analysis of variance, the most likely
explanation of this statistical difference is alpha error.
However, since the difference is consistent with the hy-
pothesis (NC > AC) and the a priori test was appropriate, it
appears likely that a real difference in Pd scores exists

between two male groups.

24

The observed differences between AC and NC Dom and
Lov scores indicates that people who habitually function in
the Natural Child state generally tend to obtain higher ICL
Dom scores and lower Lov scores than people who function in
the Adapted Child state. A more heterogeneous sample and
greater classification accuracy might have afforded sharper
differences between mean scores of the CS and the two Child
categories. The present findings support the possibility
that Dom and Lov scores may eventually provide a useful way
of differentiating people who use one Child state pre—
dominately from people who use the other Child state or who
either use one of the other ego states, e.g. Parent, or who
do not have a single predominate ego state.

The differences between AC and NC samples supports
the construct validity of Berne's differentiation between
these two ego states. Although two of the instructors had
not read any of Berne's writings, none were experienced in
applying these concepts in a clinical setting, and acquaint—
ance with any S was brief, their ability to use the brief
ego state descriptions to reliably classify the_§s in a
meaningful way was demonstrated in test results. This
positive evidence suggests that a similar approach will be
useful in developing procedures which can be used to differ—
entiate all major ego state categories. The ICL seems a
pronising instrument for beginning additional research in

this line.

25

If and when an easily used instrument differentiating
ego state functioning is developed, it could be applied to
other research problems. For example, it might be used to
determine if there is any preferable combination of types
for therapeutic groups or if it is best to have only one type
represented. If it were possible to expand the use of the
instrument to summarize the type of behavior elicited in
various situations, it could be used to define differences
in ego states elicited by specific situations. For example,
a man may function Adult on his job, Prejudicicial Parent
with his children, and Adapted Child with his wife, and it
may be desirable to change his behavior in one or all of
these areas. It could also be used to measure changes in
functioning over a period of time. Thus, it may be that
Child or Parent functioning is definitely predominant at the
beginning but be more Adult or flexible near the end of suc-
cessful therapy. In this way it would be possible to ex-
plore the idea that one of the results of therapy is that no
single ego state is inappropriately predominant.

Since the Child state categories accounted for 68%
of the Psy 101 students and these categories are reliably
different in important ways, different approaches may be
necessary to most effectively help them change their self—
defeating patterns of behavior. For example, a group of AC
types could be aided in examining the reasons for their

inhibitions and in developing more aggressivity while a NC

26

group could be helped in developing more Adult control over
their impulsiveness or to loose the archaic reasons for
their rebelliousness. A similar differentiation of goals

might be used if ego state types are combined in a group.

S UMMARY

Eric Berne's differentiation between Natural Child
(NC) and Adapted Child (AC) ego states is basically that NC
functioning is characterized by impulsive self-indulgence
and resistance to authority while AC functioning is charac-
terized by impulse inhibition and fear of authority. This
distinction was explored by having instructors of an under—
graduate Study Methods course classify their students into
categories representing §'s predominant ego state then com—
paring the groups' performances on relevant personality in—
dexes. The instructors used impressions gained from contact
with § during 20 twice weekly class sessions as a basis for
classifying S as Natural Child (NC), Adapted Child (AC) or
Cannot Say (CS). These classifications were very stable
over an eight week interval.

Selected personality tests were administered to 194
‘NS enrolled in nine sections (three per instructor) of the
course. All §s completed the MMPI Psychopathic deviate (Pd)
and Marlowe—Crowne Social Desirability (SDS) scales. A true—
false version of LaForge's Interpersonal Checklist (ICL),
providing Lov (for love-hate factor) and Dom (for dominance-

submission factor) scores was completed by 165 of the §s.

27

28

It was hypothesized that the NC category would be
associated with higher Pd and Dom scores, (reflecting re-
bellious and dominating tendencies) but lower SDS and Lov
scores, (reflecting conforming and acceptant tendencies)
than the AC category while the CS category would be associ—
ated with scores between the two extremes. These predictions
were confirmed for the ICL Dom and Lov factors and for males
only on the Pd scale. The SDS did not reliably differentiate
the categories.

Beyond supporting the construct validity of Berne's
NC and AC concepts, the findings suggest that relatively un—
trained raters can effectively employ these formulations to
meaningfully discriminate two substantial and distinctive
subgroups of students sufficiently concerned about their aca-
demic problems to enroll in a special course. A more hetero—
geneous sample and more attention to the effects of cultur-
ally imposed role behaviors would probably have produced
clearer differences. Different approaches may be required to
most effectively help people with these different self—
defeating behavior patterns. Research to further identify
personality scale correlates of the other ego states con—
ceptualized by Berne appears promising, particularly if it
uses comprehensive and behaviorally oriented techniques like

the ICL.

REFERENCES
Berne, E. Transactional analysis_;p psychotherapy. New
York: Grove, 1961.

Berne, E. The structure and dynamics pf organizations and
groups. Philadelphia: Lippincott, 1963.

 

Carkhoff, F. The MMPI; ag outline for general clinical and
counseling use. Buffalo: Author, 1962.

 

Crowne, D. and Marlowe, D. A new scale of social desira-
bility independent of psychopathology. “g. consult.
Psychol.,_§4:349-354, 1960.

Hall, A. Prediction pf interpersonal behavior py Berne's
ego state psychology. Unpublished Ph.D. disser—
tation, Univ. Portland, 1963.

 

 

Hovey, H. MMPI profile and personality characteristics. .E°
consult. Psychol., l1:142-146, 1953.

LaForge, R. Research use_gf the ICL. Oregon Research Insti-

_—.—u

tute Technical Report, 3( ), 1963.

 

 

Leary, T. Interpersonal diagnosis 2; personality. New York:
Ronald Press, 1957.

 

 

Strickland, Bonnie and Crowne, D. Conformity under con—
ditions of simulated group pressure as a function of
the need for social approval. _g. soc. Psychol.,
§§:171-181, 1962.

Winer, B. Statistical principles 1p experimental design.
New York: McGraw—Hill, 1962.

29

APPENDIX A

BIOGRAPHICAL INVENTORY

Listed below are a number of statements concerning

personal attitudes and traits. Read each item and decide
whether the statement is true or false as it pertains to you
personally. Record your answer on the answer sheet.

1)

2)

8)

9)

10)

ll)

12)
13)

14)

I never hesitate to go out of my way to help someone in
trouble.

It is sometimes hard for me to go on with my work if I
am not encouraged.

I have never intensely disliked anyone.

On occasion I have had doubts about my ability to suc-
ceed in life.

I sometimes feel resentful when I don't get my way.
I am always careful about my manner of dress.

My table manners at home are as good as when I eat out
in a restaurant.

If I could get into a movie without paying and be sure I
was not seen I would probably do it.

On a few occasions, I have given up doing something be-
cause I thought too little of my ability.

I like to gossip at times.

There have been times when I felt like rebelling against
people in authority even though I knew they were right.

No matter who I'm talking to, I'm always a good listener.
I can remember "playing sick" to get out of something.

There have been occasions when I took advantage of
someone.

30

15)
l6)

17)

18)

19)

20)

21)

22)

23)

24)

25)

26)

27)

28)
29)
30)

31)

32)

33)

34)

31

I'm always willing to admit it when I make a mistake.
I always try to practice what I preach.

I don't find it particularly difficult to get along with
loud mouthed, obnoxious peOple.

I sometimes try to get even rather than forgive and
forget.

When I don't know something I don't at all mind admitting
it.

I am always courteous, even to people who are
disagreeable.

At times I have really insisted on having things my own
way.

There have been occasions when I felt like smashing
things.

I would never think of letting someone else be punished
for my wrongdoings.

I never resent being asked to return a favor.

I have never been irked when people expressed ideas very
different from my own.

I never make a long trip without checking the safety of
my car.

There have been times when I was quite jealous of the
good fortune of others.

I have almost never felt the urge to tell someone off.
I am sometimes irritated by people who ask favors of me.
I have never felt that I was punished without cause.

I sometimes think when people have a misfortune they
only got what they deserved.

I have never deliberately said something that hurt some—
one's feelings.

My daily life is full of things that keep me interested.

At times I have very much wanted to leave home.

35)
36)
37)
38)

39)

40)
41)
42)

43)

44)

45)

46)

47)

48)

49)

50)

51)

52)

53)
54)

55)

56)

32

I have never been in trouble because of my sex behavior.
No one seems to understand me.

I have had very strange and peculiar experiences.

I am sure I get a raw deal out of life.

During one period when I was a youngster I engaged in
petty thievery.

I have not lived the right kind of life.
I am easily downed in an argument.
I have used alcohol excessively.

My parents and family find more fault with me than they
should.

These days I find it hard to make talk when I meet new
people.

These days I find it hard not to give up hope of amount-
ing to something.

I do not mind being made fun of.

I do many things which I regret afterwards (I regret
things more or more often than others seem to).

My hardest battles are with myself.

Much of the time I feel as if I have done something wrong
or evil.

My family does not like the work I have chosen (or the
work I intend to choose for my life work).

Someone has it in for me.

In school I was sometimes sent to the principal for
cutting up.

My sex life is satisfactory.
I know who is responsible for most of my troubles.

I believe my home life is as pleasant as that of most
people I know.

I wish I could be happy as others seem to be.

57)

58)
59)

60)

61)
62)
63)
64)

65)

66)

67)
68)

69)

70)

71)

72)

73)

74)

75)

76)

77)

33
My conduct is largely controlled by the customs of those
about me.
I am neither gaining nor losing weight.
I like school.

It makes me uncomfortable to put on a stunt at a party
even when others are doing the same sort of thing.

I wish I were not so shy.

I am happy most of the time.

I like to talk about sex.

I have been quite independent and free from family rule.

There is very little love and companionship in my family
as compared to other homes.

My parents have often objected to the kind of people I
went around with.

My relatives are nearly all in sympathy with me.
I have been disappointed in love.

My way of doing things is apt to be misunderstood by
others.

Sometimes without any reason or even when things are
going wrong I feel excitedly happy, "on top of the
world."

I find it hard to keep my mind on a task or job.

I am sure I am being talked about.

I am always disgusted with the law when a criminal is
freed through the arguments of a smart lawyer.

I have very few fears compared to my friends.

If people had not had it in for me I would have been
much more successful.

What others think of me does not bother me.

When in a group of people I have trouble thinking of the
right things to talk about.

34

78) At times my thoughts have raced ahead faster than I
could speak them.

79) I have very few quarrels with members of my family.

80) I have periods in which I feel unusually cheerful with-
out any special reason.

81) I am against giving money to beggers.

82) I have never been in trouble with the law.

APPENDIX B

Description of:

By:

\lmmfile-J

20

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35

Able to give orders
Appreciative

Lacks self-confidence
Warm

Cold and unfeeling
Apologetic

Very anxious to be ap-
proved of
Straightforward and direct
Cruel and unkind

Able to take care of self
Resents being bossed
Wants everyone to like him
Will believe anyone
Complaining

Cooperative

Can be indifferent to
others

Encouraging to others
Easily led

Enjoys taking care of
others

Impatient with other's
mistakes

Hard to impress
Independent

Accepts advice readily
Able to doubt others
Mannerly

Selfish

Shy

Skeptical

Sociable and neighborly
Self-respecting

Slow to forgive a wrong
Dominating

Distrust everybody
Easily embarrassed
Affectionate and
understanding

35

36
37
38
39

4D_

41
42
43
44
45
46

47
48

49
50
51
52
53
54
55

56
57
58
59
6O
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
7O
71
72

Acts important

Healthy

Boastful

Bighearted and unselfish
Businesslike

Respected by others
Resentful

Rebels against everything
Dictatorial

Dependent

Eager to get along with
others

Able to criticize self
Admires and imitates
others

Adventurous

‘Often gloomy

Likes to be taken care of
Makes a good impression
Stubborn

Spoils people with kindness
Too easily influenced by
friends

Stern but fair

Spineless

Thinks only of self
Frequently angry

Forgives anything
Friendly all the time
Always giving advice
Curious

Wants to be led

Well thought of

Will confide in anyone
Tender

Tactless

Bossy

Grateful

Good leader

Hard boiled when necessary

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

89
90
91
92

93
94

95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108

109
110
111
112
113
114

115
116
117

Sluggish

Kind and reassuring
Jealous

Likes responsibility
Severe

Can be frank and honest
Obedient

Show-off

Firm but just
Frequently disappointed
Fond of everyone
Overbearing

Clinging vine

Quiet

Revengful

Can be strict if
necessary
Considerate
Intolerant

Can complain if necessary
Likes to compete with
others

Gives freely of self
Lets others make
decisions

Noisy

Understanding

Fault finding
Critical of others
Eager to please
Reckless

Obeys too willingly
Outspoken

Forgiving
Hard-hearted

Helpful

Irritable

Agrees with everyone
Always ashamed of
self

Loves everyone
Deceitful
Spendthrift

Spunky

Gentle

Expects everyone to
admire him

Sulky

Nagging

Eager to get along
with others

36

118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158

159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167

Tactful

Friendly

Usually gives in
Restless

Cynical

Hardly ever talks back
Often admired

Patient

Likes everybody

Manages others

Meek

Often unfriendly

Often helped by others
Proud and self-satisfied
Self-reliant and assertive
Self-punishing
Self-seeking

Somewhat snobbish

Timid

Touchy and easily hurt
Tries to be too successful
Tries to comfort everyone
Thrifty

Coarse

Can be obedient

Quick

Mischievous

Sympathetic

Unforgiving

Easily fooled

Wholesome

Praising

Egotistical and conceited
Awkward

Prejudiced

Imaginative

Fair—minded

Forceful

Rude

Forbidding

Very respectful to
authority

Wants everyone's love
Wise

Generous to a fault
Modest

Rebellious

Artificial

Pessimistic

Sincere

Overprotective of others

168
169
170

171
172

Oversympathetic

Passive and unaggressive
Always pleasant and
agreeable

Sarcastic

Self—confident

37

173
174
175
176

177

Shrewd and calculating
Tender and soft hearted
Too lenient with others
Too willing to give to
others

Trusting and eager to
please

 

IllllIHflIUUlflHMWfllLWLII ll 11111111911111)

7