‘E’f'..-‘.‘~‘. ,I‘a .9 I,\{. '— 1’. " I _ ._ " "\!°_" ’0‘!“ ~a.;\’3._\ .‘. COMPLEXITY, CREATE‘JITY, AND SOCEAL DESiRABE‘LITY: CONSTRUCT VALIDATEON OF THE CRANO-B’ETTiNGHAUS MEASURE ‘ Thesis for the. Degree 01M. A _ mmw STATEUNJVERSHY mm, DIANE QUICK. " «1972 . ' ' N! h “'1 v. ‘-cfiop§3w~'m"¢ - . ‘2 r . -. ‘ . v I ..... ......... ..... O ...... - ..... . ----- - . 4 e . 4 ....... ........... , - . . ....... ABSTRACT COMPLEXITY, CREATIVITY, AND SOCIAL DESIRABILITY: CONSTRUCT VALIDATION OF THE CRANO-BETTINGHAUS MEASURE BY Alida Diane Quick The present research attempted to validate a new measure of cognitive complexity--the Crano—Bettinghaus instrument. The instrument was deemed to be a precise, expedient measure of differentiation, and a reasonable indicator of the generality of complexity across stimulus domains. The validation procedure consisted of constructing a multitrait-multimethod matrix of intercorrelations be- tween the Crano-Bettinghaus measure and several other complexity tests, as well as several purportedly related measures of creativity and social desirability. The pro- tocols of 123 subjects were used in constructing the matrix. It was hypothesized that the measures of complexity would have a high positive relationship with each other, 1 Alida Diane Quick and with measures of creativity. The social desirability measures were expected to have a high negative relation- ship with the complexity measures. The results failed to provide support for the val- idity of the Crano-Bettinghaus measure. Although a few cases of significance were reported, the data overall were not significantly different from zero. None of the pre- dicted relationships were reasonably substantiated. The lack of convergence among measures of complex- ity and the consequent absence of relationship between measures of complexity, creativity, and social desira- bility were attributed primarily to a basic theoretical void in defining the relationship between the complexity components of integration and differentiation. The pos- sibility that this relationship was nonlinear, thereby reducing the obtained correlations was considered. Meth- odological error and possibly confounding sex and content variables were also implicated. It was suggested that Specification of the integration-differentiation distinc— tion is imperative to the future development of complex- ity theory. 2 COMPLEXITY, CREATIVITY, AND SOCIAL DESIRABILITY: CONSTRUCT VALIDATION OF THE CRANO-BETTINGHAUS MEASURE BY Alida Diane Quick A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS Department of Psychology 1972 To my parents ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I am sincerely appreciative of the time, effort, and encouragement so freely given by Dr. William D. Crano, my committee chairman. My appreciation is also extended to Dr. James L. Phillips and Dr. Lawrence A. Messé for their participation on my committee. Finally I wish to thank Mr. Michael C. Byrd for his indispensable assis- tance, encouragement, and concern. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF TABLES O O O 0 I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O V INTRODUCTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . l The Concept of Complexity . . . . . . . . . . . 2 The Generality of Complexity. . . . . . . . . . lO Hypotheses. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 METHOD. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Subjects. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Instruments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Measurement Technique . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 RESULTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 DISCUSSION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 REFERENCES 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 44 APPENDIX: UNPUBLISHED MEASURES . . . . . . . . . . 48 iv LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1. INTERCORRELATIONS OF MEASURES (ALL ES)° . . . 27 2. INTERCORRELATIONS OF MEASURES (FEMALE SS) . . 30 3. INTERCORRELATIONS OF MEASURES (MALE SS) . . . 32 4. MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS OF MEASURES (MALE AND FEMALE gs). . . . . . . . . . . . 33 INT RODUCT ION Although relatively well known as an area of psy- chological inquiry, the study of human cognition and thought has recently become the object of extensive and often fruitless experimentation. Significant theoretical advances have been made, however, including an increasing body of evidence advocating the existence of systematic individual differences in structuring and organizing in- formation. Research in this area (usually restricted to the interpersonal arena) constitutes the domain of a rather recent theoretical construct--cognitive complexity. Cognitive complexity has been interpreted in a variety of interesting and often conflicting ways. All of the interpretations recognize that: a) There are sys- tematic differences in the processing of information which are in some way related to an ability to differentiate cues. b) More advanced levels of differentiation are generally associated with higher levels of complexity; less advanced levels are associated with lower levels of complexity. (The distinction is often made using the terms cognitively complex or abstract and cognitively simple or concrete, although theoretically a continuum permitting assessment on a number of levels is generally postulated.) c) These differences are presumed to be associated with other personality dimensions. The Concept of Complexity A relatively minor line of complexity research may be traced to Barron's 1953 study which involved finding correlates of subjects' preference for simple or complex line drawings. Barron described "a bipolar factor which Opposes preference for perceiving and dealing with com- plexity to a preference for perceiving and dealing with simplicity," and noted that both Welsh (1949) and Eysenck (1941) had previously identified a similar factor. Barron reported that preference for complex figures correlated positively with personal tempo, verbal fluency, impulsive- ness, originality, independency of judgment, etc., and negatively with rigidity, repression, authoritarianism, etc. Another conception originated with Gardner (1953) who coined the term "equivalence range," which was impli- citly defined as "the span or realm of objects, qualities, and so on, which subjects are willing to subsume under one conceptual rubric as being the same." A similar variable "category width" was identified by Pettigrew (1958), and described as a tendency to be consistently broad, medium, or narrow in the use of category ranges. The descriptions developed by the "response style" theorists represent serious attempts to categorize cogni- tive behavior. Although these characterizations are re- lated to complexity, the initial theoretical impetus for complexity formulations is generally credited to G. A. Kelly (1955) and his student James Bieri (1955). Kelly devised one of the most elaborate cognitive personality theories. As a part of his theory he provided several versions of the Role Concept Repertory (REP) test, intended to discover the constructs and contrasts (roughly dimensions) used by persons in evaluating and predicting experience. Though Kelly as a clinician was largely con- cerned with the content of a person's constructs, he did provide for a "nonparametric factor analysis" of one form of the REP test (Kelly, 1955) intended to evaluate the independence of dimensions, or the complexity of cognitive structure. The procedure was tedious and a much simpler measure of complexity was used by Bieri (1955) in an early study relating complexity to accuracy of interpersonal prediction. Bieri's conception of complexity is embedded in observations of the range of response versatility exhib- ited by human subjects. He was primarily concerned with the way in which individuals perceive their social worlds. He postulated that the structure of one's social world is most directly influenced by the structure of one's cogni- tive system, and more specifically by the complexity of that system. Bieri (1961) concluded that different de- grees of differentiation in people's construct systems was responsible for the versatility of response. The more complex or differentiated person possesses a more adaptive re5ponse repertory and is capable of making finer dis- criminations in social judgment. Bieri (1955) constructed what has become one of the most common methods for assessing the degree of com- plexity, the row matching technique (adapted from Kelly's REP test). This technique (revised in 1956) is based on a definition of differentiation as the relative number of dimensions used by a judge in construing others. The sub- ject is presented with a matrix across the top of which he is asked to write in the names of certain persons (parents, relatives, friends, etc.). The rows of the matrix contain bipolar trait dimensions such as outgoing-shy and adjusted- maladjusted. The subject is required to rate each person on each of the dimensions using a six-category scale. By considering how similar each construct row is to every other construct row in terms of ratings, a mea- sure of differentiation is obtained. If the subject has many construct rows with highly similar ratings he is con- sidered to have low cognitive complexity. If the matrix generated has markedly different ratings he is high in complexity. It is assumed that the number of constructs and degree of differentiation correlate highly, therefore the measure reflects cognitive differentiation. Another important theoretical position to be con- sidered is one introduced by Harvey, Hunt, and Schroder (1961), which has been extended more recently by Schroder, Driver, and Streufert (1967) and Harvey (1966). These authors have elaborated the term "conceptual systems" into a fairly thorough approach to complexity which is theoret- ically distinct from Bieri's by virtue of the inclusion of integration as a basic complexity component. Integration generally relates to the degree of organization of cogni- tive components into interdependent systems. Harvey, Hunt, and Schroder (1961) suggest a con- tinuum labeled "concrete—abstract." They describe only seven positions along this dimension, but explicitly state that admixtures of the major systems are prevalent. The "This I Believe" (TIB) test devised by Harvey et a1. (1961) is used extensively in their studies. Subjects are required to complete the sentence stem "This I believe about . . . ," indicating their beliefs about relevant concepts (marriage, religion, sin, etc.). Classification of subjects by content analysis into the various systems is based on such things as absolutism of beliefs, depen- dence on external authorities, and degree of ethnocentrism. Harvey (1966) theorized that there are major qual- itative changes in behavior as a person moves through four major stages of abstractness. At least two characteris- tics are readily identifiable, namely differentiation and integration, the former progressing through the first three systems (levels of concreteness-abstractnesS), and the latter being the major distinction between the third and fourth systems. Harvey's systems approach assumes that cognitive structures evolve from an initial state of undifferentiation in a stage-like process to a state of relative abstractness. The attained level of abstract- ness is determined by childhood training experiences. Schroder, Driver, and Streufert (1967) present a different situation. Although one might expect their theory to be similar to Harvey's in that both descend from Harvey, Hunt, and Schroder (1961), and in Spite of an im- plied acceptance of similarity on the part of the prin- ciples, there are basic differences. Schroder et al. (1967) distinguish between dimensionality and integration, state that there is no necessary relationship between the two, and thenceforth restrict their attention almost ex- clusively to integration. Schroder et al. describe four levels, but indicate that these are merely points on a continuous dimension. Concrete structures (low integration index) characteris- tically possess, a greater tendency toward bifurcated (black- white, right-wrong, good-bad) thinking, abso- lutistic standards and an apparent dependence on these fixed standards as the only author- ity; a greater inability to generate conflict or ambiguity-~an orientation in which the world is bent to fit the rule; a greater tendency to standardize judgements in a novel situation; a greater tendency not to interrelate perspectives; a poorer delineation between means and ends; a poorer capacity to act "as if" and to understand the other's perspectives; and less potential to perceive the self as a causal agent in interacting with the environment (Schroder, 1971, p. 257). Schroder, Driver, and Streufert cite several tech- niques for assessing differentiation, discrimination, and integration. Integration is the most important behavioral referent from their perspective, and the Paragraph Comple- tion test (PCT) is their preferred method of assessment. The test presents the subject with six stems representing structure, conflict, and uncertainty in the interpersonal area. The subject is required to write at least two sen- tences in response to each stem. Completions are scored by judges who are trained to focus on the structural pro- perties of the responses. Schroder et a1. explicitly state how their theory differs from traditional approaches. The greatest depar- ture, however, stems from their recognition of the rami- fications of environmental factors on conceptual level. An interaction perspective is promoted. Level of concep- tual structure and environmental complexity do not operate independently, according to Schroder, Driver, and Streu— fert. Both overly simple and overly complex environments reduce the levels of integration involved. One fails to provide sufficiently diverse units to stimulate integra- tion; the other provides information which is so diverse that integration is seriously hampered. Thus a general inverted U curve relationship between level of information processing and environmental complexity is postulated. Research supportive of this prediction is presented (Schroder, Driver, and Streufert, 1967). Most complexity research could also be classified into the larger category of impression formation. A small group of impression formation theorists not allied with any particular complexity theory have sought to relate complexity to accuracy of interpersonal prediction and resolution of inconsistent impressions. Results in this area have been inconsistent. The work of Walter Crockett (1965) and associates has, however, been especially rele- vant to the present investigation. Crockett (personal communication) has designed an instrument to assess com- plexity based on the conjecture that complex subjects can more adequately reconcile potentially conflicting themes than noncomplex subjects (Nidorf, 1961), and complex sub— jects tend to fomulate more inferences from a set of information than do less complex subjects (Campbell, 1960; 10 Levanthal, 1957). The instrument is described in detail in a later section. The Generality of Complexity Fundamental to the development of theory and re- search design is the determination of whether or not to include cognitive complexity as a general personality trait. Until very recently, virtually no complexity the- orist would claim that his measure had any great degree of generality, but even at that there remained a range in the degree of generality thought to exist. Zajonc (1960) argued that cognitive structures are extremely transitory, shifting in complexity and in- tegration to meet varying Situational needs and demands, as well as varying with content area. This represents probably the extreme "fluidity" position. Most researchers are content to say merely that complexity may vary across domains (Gardner and Schoen, 1962; Scott, 1969). Harvey (1966) proposed that since conceptual de— velopment is theoretically linked to parental training techniques, subjects will vary across areas to the extent that parents varied in their training programs. Schroder 11 et a1. (1967) supported a similar perspective. In addi- tion, they stated that the level of information processing in a given area varies over time due to environmental factors. Crockett (1965) cited both supportive and unsup- portive evidence, and considered the generality issue an open question. He did imply rejection of generality on the supposition that "an individual's constructs relative to others with whom he interacts frequently and intensely will be more complex than his constructs relative to cate- gories of people with whom he interacts less intensely." One of the most extensive examinations of gener- ality to date was by Vannoy (1965), who studied the inter- relationships of a number of "standard" complexity tests as well as several related measures. His stated purpose was to determine generality in the interpersonal domain. Vannoy reasoned that "if a factor analytic appraisal of the scores yielded by these measures reveals a single factor which accounts for a large portion of the variance of scores, and if the content of this factor is appro- priate, we may conclude evidence of a general personality trait." The results indicate a conglomeration of factors 12 which account for complexity. Vannoy suggests therefore that complexity does not possess any degree of generality. Although many theorists are content to stay "middle of the road" on the generality issue, a few have found empirical evidence supporting generality. Bieri and Blacker (1956) compared a construct fluency measure on the REP with complexity of determinants of Rorschach percep- tions. They reported positive correlations between these diverse types of complexity. These results purportedly indicate some degree of generality although a replication by Sechrest and Jackson (1961) demonstrated that they were not strikingly powerful. Allard and Carlson (1963) compared complexity scores from three different REP tests, one using known people, another using famous people, the third geometric shapes. Their results also lend support to the generality of complexity. Crano and Bettinghaus (1970) argued for the gen- erality of complexity across diverse attitude domains. They have developed a measuring instrument which contains a number of evaluative qualifiers (or categories of judg- ment). The instrument is presented to subjects whose task involves using these qualifiers in describing reactions to a group of attitude objects. The qualifiers are l3 organized into a battery of semantic differential scales. Experimental findings (Crano and Bettinghaus, 1970) showed that some subjects tended to use these qualifiers with consistently restricted response variabilities (low com— plex) while others employed the categories with consis- tently unrestricted response variabilities (high complex). The results also correlated significantly with dogmatism scores, and were taken as evidence for the generality of complexity across domains of content. Hypotheses The present research was based primarily on the principle of convergence of comparable measures. Tests of complexity (Tuckman's ITI, the Crockett measure, and the Crano instrument) were expected to be representative of the same underlying construct. It was expected that the Crano-Bettinghaus measure would correlate highly with Tuckman's ITI and the Crockett instrument. Although both the ITI and the Crockett test were specifically designed to assess integration, while the Crano-Bettinghaus test is based on a differentiation measure, this difference was not expected to interfere with anticipated results. 14 Subjects high in differentiation should be correspondingly high in integration. All of the complexity measures were also expected to correlate highly with measures of creativity and social desirability. The postulated creativity relationship is based on the assumption that an individual who is high in complexity has more alternatives available to him, and should therefore be more likely to produce creative re- sponses. In addition, the finding that complex indivi- duals tend to exhibit independence of judgment and origi- nality (Barron, 1953) provides a direct link between the terms. Tuckman (1966) and Harvey (1966) cite additional support for the predicted relationship. Creativity as used in this study is based upon a measure of the extent to which an individual's thinking embraces novelty and leads to the production of unusual responses; and a measure of the extent to which an indi- vidual's social and educational background conforms to the "creative" norms of the Biographical Inventory. Social desirability has been equated with a need for approval (Marlowe and Crowne, 1964). An individual who characteristically demonstrates a reliance on cultural 15 stereotypes and standardized judgments may be at least partially motivated by needs for social approval. These tendencies have been demonstrated by individuals low in complexity (Schroder, 1971). It was expected that low complex subjects would show a greater need to respond in a socially desirable manner than high complex subjects. The complexity and social desirability measures were expected to have a high negative relationship. The relationship between complexity and social desirability may be considered somewhat tenous in that it is theoretically plausible, but on the empirical level results have been inconsistent. Schroder, Driver, and Streufert (1967) found that measures of abstractness were unrelated to social desirability. Their results seem to indicate that the tendency to respond in a socially de- sirable manner may be present at any level of complexity. Although they accept the principle and state that a rela- tionship should exist, their results nevertheless do not prove supportive. Using the Marlowe-Crowne scale, Bieri (1965) reported results opposite to these. He found that individuals low in complexity responded in a more socially desirable manner than subjects who were high in complexity. 16 Problem The test developed by Crano and Bettinghaus thus far suggests a precise, expedient method of assessing complexity. Its principle advantage over many other tests rests in the simplicity of its scoring procedure. It eliminates the tedious time-consuming training procedures associated with several other methods. The present research represented an attempt to provide construct validation for the Crano-Bettinghaus test using the multitrait—multimethod technique (Campbell and Fiske, 1959). The criteria for validation were mea- sures of complexity (Tuckman's ITI and the Crockett mea- sure), measures of creativity (Unusual Uses and the Bio- graphical Inventory), and measures of social desirability (the Marlowe-Crowne and Edwards scales). METHOD Subjects One hundred and twenty-three undergraduate stu- dents (40 males and 83 females) enrolled in introductory psychology classes at Michigan State University were re- cruited as subjects. Recruitment was accomplished through the standard procedure of sign-up sheets in various uni- versity lecture rooms. Prospective subjects were re- quested to participate in a "Person Perception" experiment to be held at various times and locations for which they would receive credit in their psychology classes. Procedure Ten experimental sessions were conducted with ten to thirty subjects and one experimenter participating. Each subject was given a stapled booklet containing the Unusual Uses, Crockett, Biographical Inventory, Marlowe— Crowne, Tuckman, Edwards, and Crano-Bettinghaus tests. 17 18 The tests were arranged so that the timed instruments (Unusual Uses and Crockett tests) were presented first. This was done to permit subjects to complete most of the task at their own rate of speed since the booklet was extremely long. After presenting the booklets the experimenter asked the subjects to print only their sex in the upper right-hand corner of the questionnaire. The experimenter then urged that during the task all instructions be read carefully. The importance of asking about any part of the tests that was not fully understood was emphasized. The subjects were allowed several minutes to read the instructions for the Unusual Uses test. After reading the instructions subjects were given four minutes to complete each part of the two part Unusual Uses task. The experimenter then allowed several minutes for reading the instructions for the Crockett instrument. The subjects were permitted five minutes to complete the task. Upon completion of the Crockett test the experi- menter instructed the subjects to finish the rest of the booklet, again urging that She be consulted about anything 19 which was not understood. Subjects were asked to sur- render their booklets when they were completed, at which time they would receive credit for their participation. The subjects were given the option of waiting until every- one at the session has completed their booklets to be debriefed as to the full nature of the study. Instruments The Crano-Bettinghaus measure (see Appendix) has been previously described as a battery of semantic dif- ferential scales. Each of the ten scales (six evaluative and four fillers) requests the subject's opinion about ten different attitude objects (abortion, the Black Pan- thers, etc.). Each protocol is scored on the basis of the variability of response to each concept. A consensus of ranks is then derived as a summary measure. Interpersonal Topical Inventory (Tuckman, 1966)-- The subject is asked to choose one alternative (from each of six pairs) which best represents his feeling or reac- tion to interpersonal topics (see Appendix). Each alter- native is classified I to IV on the concreteness— abstractness dimension. A subject is placed into the 20 system in which he scores in the eighth, ninth, or tenth decile (Tuckman, personal communication). Subjects scoring equally high in more than one system cannot be classified. The instrument is intended to be an objective measure of integration, and the topics are closely related to PCT sentence stems. The Crockett measure (see Appendix) presents sub- jects with several contradictory statements about a stim- ulus person purportedly made by an individual well acquainted with him. Subjects are asked to write a five minute statement of their impressions of the stimulus person. Crockett (personal communication) suggests an intricate set of scoring procedures. After extensive experience with these procedures, however, the investi- gator decided to employ only the procedure for determining five levels of organization. In the present study impres- sions were scored on one of five levels according to Crockett's suggested guidelines. The levels were arranged in order of increasing complexity (level one being repre- sentative of concreteness; level five being representative of abstractness). Interjudge agreement for assigning subjects to the different levels was .87. Twenty-five 21 randomly selected protocols were used in determining agree- ment for all subjective measures. The Biographical Inventory (Schaefer, 1970) is a questionnaire requiring subjects' responses on such things as home life, education, and hobbies. The subject is asked to indicate the provided response which is most nearly accurate for him. The instrument, consisting of four sub- scales, utilizes the life history approach for identifying creative persons. The Family scale which tended to yield low correlations with the other scales (Schaefer, 1970) was not included in the present study. Scoring keys are provided with the Biographical Inventory. Males and fe- males are scored using four different keys. In an effort to assess males and females in comparable areas, only the art keys were used in this study. Schaefer (1970) reports test-retest reliability coefficients ranging from .87 to .95. Unusual Uses (see Appendix)--Subjects are asked to list unusual uses for common objects within a designated time period. The test is one of the most common methods for assessing creativity. In the present study subjects were given one point for each suggested use which was 22 deemed to have high statistical or practical infrequency. Interjudge reliability was .84. The Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale (Mar- lowe and Crowne, 1964) consists of 33 statements concerning personal attitudes and traits. Half are culturally accept- able but probably untrue, the other half are true but un- desirable. Subjects are required to respond (true or false) to each statement. Each respondent receives one point for each item marked in the socially desirable di- rection. Scores may vary between 0 (low social desira- bility) and 33 (high sopial desirability). Internal con- sistency for the instrument (Kuder-Richardson 20) is re- ported at .88 (Marlowe and Crowne, 1964). Edwards Social Desirability Scale--Using various scaling methods, Edwards (1957) determined the degree of social desirability of 79 MMPI items. Thirty-nine of these items were selected and designated the Social Desirability Scale. The scale requires subjects' responses (true or false) to the 39 statements. This response mode was mod- ified in the present investigation. Subjects were asked instead to write a few sentences expressing their feelings about each of the statements. This modification was 23 necessitated by the fact that the multitrait-multimethod technique requires the measurement of a trait by at least two methods. Responses were given two points if they were in the socially desirable direction, one point if they did not reflect social desirability or undesirabil- ity, and no points if they were socially undesirable. Interrater reliability on this subjective measure was .97. Measurement Technique Validity of the measures was evaluated through a multitrait-multimethod matrix (Cambell and Fiske, 1959). Multitrait-multimethod analysis is based on the principles of convergent and discriminant validation which are essen- tially subclasses of construct validity. Convergent validation (with which this research was primarily con- cerned) represents evaluation of the instrument by inde- pendent measures of the critical variable. Discriminant validation, on the other hand, requires comparison of the critical variable with a series of other variables with which it is not expected to relate. The technique involves a matrix of intercorrelations between at least two traits measured by at least two different methods. 24 The present study used the following matrix format: Method I (forced choice response) Trait A --Complexity: ITI Trait Al--Comp1exity: Crano-Bettinghaus Trait Bl--Social desirability: Marlowe-Crowne Trait Cl--Creativity: Biographical Inventory Method II (open-ended response) Trait A2--Complexity: Crockett Trait B2——Socia1 desirability: Edwards Trait C2--Creativity: Unusual Uses Method I used two measures of the critical variable (Tuckman's ITI and the Crano-Bettinghaus measures). The "extra" measure (ITI) was expected to augment obtained results. It was included primarily because it represents one of the few attempts to assess integrative complexity using a forced choice response mode. Ideally both related and distinct variables would have been included in the matrix, but the construct of complexity embraces such a vast range of behaviors that it is difficult, if not impossible, to find meaningful variables with which it does not relate theoretically. Though the requirement of discriminant validation was 25 not intended to be fulfilled, it was expected that exam- ination of the relationships among related variables would provide a basis for validity. RESULTS Intercorrelations of the three variables (com- plexity, creativity, and social desirability) were orga- nized into a multitrait-multimethod matrix for the entire sample (Table 1). Correlations were computed using Pearson's r. Due to incomplete data, M ranged from 103 to 123. For ease of interpretation, Campbell and Fiske (1959) suggest labeling various regions of the matrix. Three groups of matrix entries will be identified and used consistently: 1) The underlined values represent measurements of the same trait by different methods. These intercorrelations, generally termed validity diag- onals or validity coefficients, indicate convergence of independent measures of the same trait (except in the Crano-Tuckman case where the methods are not independent). These values are the single most important determinants of convergent validity. 2) The values enclosed by a solid line represent heterotrait-monomethod blocks. 26 0H. v a“ 27 mo. v may Ho. v m««« mmo.-. mes. .«.vmm. rmwo. oma. ems. _ Nu mums Anamsaa mso.u _ who.-.|~w..mkm. _moo. «msa. _ mm mwumzum _ mmo. kmo._ omo. «mma. ma Dumxoouu Ill. popcmlcmmd «Ha. «mo. «.mma. Ho muouqm>cH .moflm OHH . moo . Hm 0G3OHUIO3OHHMS mma. as osmuo d cmaxosa OOHOSU UOUHOM mm N4 HO Hm Hé d cmpcwlcwmo mowono pmouom Amm qqav mmmamsms,mo mone4qmmmoommezH H m4m¢8 28 These blocks are composed of intercorrelations between measures of different traits using the same method. 3) The values enclosed by a broken line are heterotrait- heteromethod blocks consisting of intercorrelations be- tween measures having neither trait nor method in common. The Crano-Bettinghaus measure was expected to correlate highly with the Crockett and Tuckman instru- ments. Convergence of the measures at this minimal level did not occur. The validity coefficients for the Tuckman— Crano and Crano-Crockett intercorrelations were not sig- nificantly different from zero. Among the complexity validity diagonals only the Crockett-Tuckman intercorre- lation was marginally significant (.182 p < .10). In addition to required significance, each valid- ity diagonal should have also been higher than the other values lying in its column and row. (It should have been higher than both heterotrait-heteromethod and heterotrait- nonomethod intercorrelations in which it was involved.) None of the complexity validity diagonals met this re- quirement. It was hypothesized that all of the creativity measures would have high positive intercorrelations with 29 the complexity measures. The Tuckman-Biographical Inven- tory entry (.193 p < .05) was the only correlation out of six that was supportive of this hypothesis. The predicted complexity-social desirability relationship was not confirmed by experimental findings. The Tuckman-Edwards entry was, however, marginally sig- nificant (.173 p < .10). It should be noted that the validity coefficients for creativity (.284 p < .01) and social desirability (.278 p < .01) were both significant. In view of the preponderance of female subjects, two additional matrices were constructed on the basis of sex. Table 2 presents a matrix based on females only. The adjusted N ranged from 70 to 83. Table 3 presents a matrix based on male subjects only. The N ranged from 30 to 40. Table 2 indicates Significant validity coeffi- cients for the Crockett-Tuckman (.359 p < .01) and Crano-Tuckman (.212 p < .10) intercorrelations. In addition both coefficients met the requirement that neither correlate higher with different traits using the same method. Three of the six complexity-social desirability intercorrelations were negative though insignificant. One value the Tuckman-Edwards was 30 OH. v as mo. v m.. Ho. v mete smo.u ova. «.Hmm. mlemwu «ma. .«om~._ mo mmm: Hmsmscs mmo.- mao.u rlwwmwmws ugamo.u «comm; mm muumswm _mso. oqo. Hoo. .«.mmm. Na Dumxoouo poccmlsmmo mas. «and. .mma. Ho snouam>qH .moflm Nos. HNH.I Hm masouo-m30aums «Nam. Ha oamuo d cmfixosa GUHOQU UmUHom mm «a HD Hm Am a Umpcmlcomo ,DOAOSD Umouom 1mm mq¢zmmc mamSmams mo monaaqmmmoummazH N mam49 31 marginally significant (.200 p < .10), but in a positive direction. The complexity-creativity intercorrelations were significant in three cases (Tuckman-Unusual Uses, Crano-Biographical Inventory, and Tuckman—Biographical Inventory). The male subjects (Table 3) did not have signif- icant validity diagonals for the critical variable. None of the complexity-creativity intercorrelations was signif— icant, and only one complexity-social desirability entry was marginally significant (.291 p < .10). The most outstanding difference between males and females occurred in the complexity diagonals. On measures where females had high intercorrelations, males tended to have low or negative values. Conversely, in the instance where males had a relatively high (though nonsignificant) intercorrelation, the females were extremelylow. The significance of male-female differences on the three complexity intercorrelations was tested using Fisher's z transformation. The Tuckman-Crockett difference was significant (2 = 2.10 p < .05). Females had a signifi- cantly higher intercorrelation in the Tuckman-Crockett cell than males. 32 OH. V m* HO. V Qtfi H00. V m#** vwa.| NHH. «xxmmm. mmo.| who. who._ No mmmo Hmsmsco mmH.- a emfl.u «.msv. mmamll mmH._ mm moumsvm — moo.| mmodlg nvm. moa.| NE pumxoouu omosmlcomo Ho~.u omo.u med. Ho muouam>cH .moflm oom. «Ham. Hm maSOHUImonHmS omo. Hm osmno ¢ smExUDB woeoso pwouom mm mm Ho Hm HE E 1mm mqasc mmmomams mo moneaqmmmoommezH m mnmda .a. “5 I u” 33 Differences between complexity intercorrelations within sexes were tested for significance using the t statistic. For females the Crockett-Crano and Tuckman- Crockett intercorrelations were significantly different (.358 p < .05). None of the intercorrelations for males were significantly different. Table 4 presents means and standard deviations of The scores had scores for male and female subjects. comparable distributions. TABLE 4 MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS OF MEASURES (MALE AND FEMALE SS) Measure Mean-Female Mean-Male SD Female SD Male Crano 60.193 65.750 35.360 36.409 Tuckman 3.556 3.364 .729 .994 Crockett 2.926 3.081 1.022 .924 M-c~ 15.205 13.150 7.652 4.742 Edwards 50.878 54.333 12.434 8.112 Uses 6.108 7.103 3.295 3.865 BI 105.084 102.650 6.031 3.906 34 The presence of methods variance in all trait intercorrelations was determined by comparing the levels of correlation between parallel values of the same method and different methods. For example, AlBl and A132 were compared. Since both B1 and B2 represent the same trait, their intercorrelations with Al should be of approximately the same magnitude. If Al shares a much higher intercor- relation with El methods variance is assumed. In the present study most of the estimates of methods variance were large relative to the intercorrela- tions upon which they were based. In fact, the estimates were larger than the intercorrelations in several cases. The accurate determination of methods variance requires that intercorrelations between measures be much higher than those obtained in this investigation. DISCUSSION The data fail to provide support for the validity of the Crano-Bettinghaus measure. It is reasonable to assume that both methodological and theoretical factors had substantial effects on this outcome. It is suspected, however, that theoretical problems associated with the concept of complexity were most seriously implicated. At the most simplistic methodological level, sampling inadequacies may have affected obtained results. Females outnumbered males by almost two to one in the study. With such large differences it is probable that the male subject sample was not as representative of the p0pulation as females. The length of the task may have also introduced a degree of error. By the end of the task which was ex- tremely long and tedious, boredom and disinterest may have discouraged some subjects from responding accurately. There were no available reliability estimates for any of the complexity measures prior to the study. Assum- ing that the three complexity instruments are measuring 35 36 the same thing, the intercorrelations can be considered reliability estimates. It is therefore reasonable to entertain the possibility of instrumental error or trait instability. Such errors would tend to reduce or atten— uate correlations between traits. In the event that reliabilities were low it was perhaps presumptuous to employ the multitrait-multimethod technique. The technique is stringent and assumes a level of sophistication in measurement that may not yet be at- tained with complexity measures. Indeed Campbell and Fiske (1959) warn that few psychological instruments can fulfill the requirements of the technique. The reliability issue exposes what may be the most crucial problem in complexity research--the lack of comparability between measures. Although this problem has been consistently raised by theorists (Bieri, 1965; Vannoy, 1965; Schroder, 1971) little has been done to alleviate it. The basic problem seems to be in defining relation- ships among the complexity components. Theorists tend to rely either on differentiation or integration and appar- ently the instruments reflect this reliance by forcing subjects to attend to one or the other. In the present 37 study both Crockett and Tuckman measures are based essen- tially on integration. The correlation between them is significant in the female sample. The Crano instrument, on the other hand, was designed to assess differentiation. It is only marginally related to the ITI and unrelated to the Crockett test in the female sample. Apparently differentiation and integration may not be linearly related. Schroder, Driver, and Streufert (1967) recognized the distinction between these two con- structs and stated that higher levels of integration do not necessarily imply higher levels of differentiation. They lead one to infer, however, that the cases to which they are referring are exceptions. Bieri (1971) also recognized the issue, but dismissed it on the grounds that integrative functioning is more complicated and refractory to analysis than differentiation. In factorial studies both Gardiner (1968) and Vannoy (1965) presented evidence that measures of differ- entiation are unrelated to measures of integration. These findings are theoretically difficult to accept, and one is led to conclude that the measures employed must not have been accurate in their operationalizations of the con- structs. Another plausible explanation is that some 38 relationship other than a linear one exists. Indeed Schroder (1971) posited that the relationship between differentiation and integration is curvilinear. In any event, the distinction appears so pervasive that the possibility of nonlinearity must be recognized. Rejection of the implicit assumption that levels of integration necessarily co-vary with levels of differ- entiation receives some support from the female sample in the present study. This line of reasoning is apparently not applicable to the males in the sample if selection in- adequacies were not significant. Sex distinctions appear to have been operative. Although none of the validity co- efficients for males were significant, one did approach significance: the Crockett-Crano entry. It is interesting to note that on the content side, both measures require evaluation of other people, objects, or ideas. The Tuckman measure is more self-oriented. This may be in line with Crockett's (1965) assumption that the intensity of one's relationship with significant others may affect complex- ity. If females are more intense in all relationships relative to males their complexity levels would be ex- pected to be higher and more stable than males. 39 Even though the correlational analysis used in this study makes statements of causality invalid, the speculation nevertheless remains interesting. It is im- portant in suggesting that though complexity is purported to be a structural variable, content factors cannot be dismissed as easily as some theorists suggest (Schroder, Driver, and Streufert, 1967). It may also serve to indi- cate that generality across and/or within domains of con- tent may still be an open question. The possibility of rejecting the generality of complexity finds some additional support in a further analysis of the domains associated with the complexity tests employed in this study. Both Crockett and Tuckman measures involved the interpersonal domain. The Crano measure involved many issues outside of the interpersonal area. If generality across stimulus domains as reported by Crano and Bettinghaus (1970) only occurs outside of the interpersonal domain, low correlations among the com- plexity measures would be expected. The results indicate that this possibility should be considered. Social desirability was expected to be negatively related to complexity. Although nearly all of the obtained intercorrelations were nonsignificant there appears to be 40 a slight tendency for complexity to be positively related to social desirability for males and negatively related for females. Bieri (1965) found a similar relationship for females and attributed his finding to a greater degree of conservatism and conformity among less complex female subjects. The male trend is more difficult to describe. It might relate to the fact that many of the social desira- bility statements (e.g. "I cry easily" from the Edwards scale) may have caused some embarrassment among male sub- jects in revealing what appeared to be "weak" character- istics. The fact that the male mean was slightly higher than the female mean on the Edwards measure provides some support for this speculation. Another consideration centers around the validity diagonals for social desirability. Although significant, the diagonals should have been much higher if indeed the Edwards and Marlowe-Crowne measures were comparable. Arguments focusing on the pathological nature of the Edwards instrument have been advanced (Marlowe and Crowne, 1964). In view of its derivation from the MMPI it is pos- sible that the Edward measure may be describing a different kind of social desirability than the Marlowe-Crowne. 41 The concept of creativity is beset with problems similar to those faced by complexity theory. Tryk (1968) described the foremost problems as the isolation and quan- tification of meaningful criteria, and the absence of a sufficiently general theoretical framework. It is not surprising then that the average correlation between mea- sures of creativity is .30 (Wallach and Kogan, 1965). In the present study the obtained creativity intercorrela- tions were .261 for females and .526 for males. It can be assumed then that the measures used in this study were acceptable indicators of creativity. The slight positive relationship found between complexity and creativity for females and its absence for males may be explained in terms of sex roles. It is clear that the educated female is not completely adhering to her traditionally prescribed role. It might be necessary, therefore, for this female to learn to implement more adaptive cognitive schemes in order to deal with her in- consistent position. These adaptive or creative charac- teristics may generalize into many areas of cognitive functioning, making females in the college population more creative than their male counterparts. Several studies (Trembly, 1964; Klausmeier and Wiersma, 1964) have found 42 that females are more creative than males. Results oppo- site to these (Torrance, 1963) as well as results indicat- ing no differences between sexes (Torrance, 1961) have also been reported. Evidence on sex differences suggests that males and females should behave differently in situations in- volving cognitive processes, but research in this area is in need of more systematic analysis. The "sex role" argu- ment remains tenable, however, and illustrates, as have several of the findings, the possible presence and con— founding influence of sex variables in cognitive function- ing. Summary The present research suggests the need for more crucial specification of the components of complexity. Until this theoretical snag is mended, the various mea- sures will probably continue to appear unrelated. Bieri (1966) has suggested that a developmental point of depar- ture could be fruitful. Tracing differentiation and integration from early childhood might present a clearer picture of their relationship. 43 In addition, the research suggests that content and sex variables may be just as valuable in determining these specifications as structural variables. Complexity then may not be based on structure alone. If content variables are important, generality arguments will have to be revised accordingly. Relational statements between complexity and other personality variables will have to await further clarifi— cation of the differentiation-integration issue. The parameters of complexity should be defined before empir- ical relationships are integrated into the theory. REFERENCES Allard, Barron, Bieri, Bieri, Bieri, Bieri, Bieri, Bieri, REFERENCES M. and Carlson, E. R. The generality of cognitive complexity. Journal of Social Psychology, 1963, 59, 73-75. F. Complexity—Simplicity as a personality dimen- sion. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1953, 48, 163-172. J. Cognitive complexity and personality develop- ment. In 0. J. Harvey (Ed.), Experience, struc- ture and adaptibility. New York: Springer, 1966. J. Cognitive complexity: Assessment issues in the study of cognitive structure. Paper presented at the APA, September, 1965. J. Cognitive complexity-simplicity and predictive behavior. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psy- chology, 1955, 51, 263-268. J. Cognitive structures in personality. In H. M. Schroder and P. Suedfeld (Eds.), Personality theory and information processing. New York: Ronald Press, 1971. J. Complexity-simplicity as a personality variable in cognitive and preferential behavior. In D. Fiske and S. Maddi (Eds.), Functions of varied experience. Homewood, Ill.: Dorsey Press, 1961. J. and Blacker, E. The generality of cognitive complexity in the perception of people and ink- blots. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1956. 44 45 Campbell, D. T. and Fiske, D. W. Convergent and discrimi- nant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 1959, 56, 81-105. Campbell, V. N. Assumed similarity, perceived sociometric balance, and social influence. Unpublished doc- toral thesis, Univ. of Colorado, 1960. Cited in Bieri, J. Complexity-simplicity as a personality variable in cognitive and preferential behavior. In D. W. Fiske and S. Maddi (Eds.), Functions of varied experience. Homewood, I11.: Dorsey, 1961. Crano, W. D. and Bettinghaus, C. O. The generality of evaluative differentiation across diverse attitude domains. Unpublished manuscript, Michigan State University, 1970. Crockett, W. H. Cognitive complexity and impression for- mation. In B. A. Maher (Ed.), Progress in exper- imental personality research. Vol. 2, New York: Academic Press, 1965. Edwards, A. L. The social desirability variable in per- sonality assessment and research. New York: Dryden Press, 1957. Eysenck, H. J. The general factor in aesthetic judgments. British Journal of Psychology, 1941, 31, 94-102. Gardiner, G. S. Some correlates of cognitive complexity. Unpublished master's thesis, University of Alberta, 1968. Gardner, R. W. Cognitive styles in categorizing behavior. Journal of Personality, 1953, 22, 214-233. Gardner, R. W. and Schoen, R. A. Differentiation and ab- straction in concept formation. Psyphological Monographs, 1962, 76, no. 41. Harvey, O. J. System structure, flexibility, and crea- tivity. In 0. J. Harvey (Ed.), Experience, struc- ture, and adaptibility. New York: Springer, 1966. 46 Harvey, O. J., Hunt, D. E., and Schroder, H. M. Concep- tual systems and personality organization. New York: Norton, 1961. Kelly, G. A. Theppsychology of personal constructs. New York: Norton, 1955. Klausmeier, H. J. and Wiersma, W. Relationship of sex, grade level, and local to performance of high IQ students on divergent thinking tests. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1964, 55, 114-119. Levanthal, H. Cognitive processes and interpersonal pre— dictions. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psy- Marlowe, D. and Crowne, D. The approval motive. New York: Wiley, 1964. Nidorf, L. J. Individual differences in impression forma- tion. Unpublished doctoral thesis, Clark Univer- sity, Worcester, Mass., 1961. Pettigrew, T. F. The measurement and correlates of cate- gory width as a cognitive variable. Journal of Personality, 1958, 26, 532-544. Schaefer, C. E. Biographical inventory creativity (BIC). San Diego, Calif.: Educational and Industrial Testing Service, 1970. Schroder, H. M. Conceptual complexity and personality. In H. M. Schroder and P. Suedfeld (Eds.), Person- ality theory and informationpprocessing. New York: Ronald Press, 1971. Schroder, H. M., Driver, M. J., and Streufert, S. Human information processing. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1967. Scott, W. A. The structure of natural cognitions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1969, 12, 261-278. 47 Sechrest, L. B. and Jackson, D. N. Social intelligence and accuracy of interpersonal predictions. Journal of Personality, 1961, 29, 268-274. Torrance, E. P. Changing reactions of preadolescent girls to tasks requiring creative scientific thinking. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 1963, 102, 217-223. Torrance, E. P. Factors affecting creative thinking in children: An interim research report. Merrill- Palmer Quarterly, 1961, 7, 171-180. Trembly, D. Age and sex differences in creative thinking potential. Paper presented at the APA, 1964. Tryk, H. E. Assessment in the study of creativity. In P. McReynolds (Ed.), Advances in psychological assessment. Vol. 1, Palo Alto, Calif: Science and Behavior Books, 1968. Tuckman, B. W. Integrative complexity: Its measure and relation to creativity. Educational and Psypho- logical Measurement, 1966, 26, no. 2, 369-396. Vannoy, J. S. Generality of cognitive complexity-simplicity as a personality construct. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1965, 2, 385-396. Wallach, M. A. and Kogan, N. A new look at the creativity- intelligence dimension. Journal of Personality, 1965, 33, 348-369. Welsh, G. S. A projective figure-preference test for diag- nosing psychopathology. Unpublished doctoral thesis, University of Minnesota, 1949. Zajonc, R. B. The process of cognitive tuning in commun- ication. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psy- chology, 1960, 61, 159-167. APPENDIX UNPUBLISHED MEASURES CROCKETT MEASURE CROCKETT MEASURE We are interested in the ways that people perceive and respond to others. The following four descriptions were contributed by individuals who are well acquainted with "John." Please read each of these descriptions, and indi- cate to the experimenter when you have completed your reading. Please do not go on to the next page until told to do so. Four acquaintances' description of John: 1. John is sympathetic. He has a knack for showing sympathy for his friends when they need it most. He always listens carefully whenever someone tells him about what's bothering him. He has a real interest in those who come to him with their problems and is very good at com- forting them. 2. John is boastful. The way he talks about himself and the things he's done, you would think he was perfect. He's always telling his friends how great he is, and bragging about his accomplishments. It seems as though John never stops boasting. 3. John is helpful. Whenever someone needs help, John is there to lend a hand. He is known for always doing his share, and he often contributes in ways that others would not. You can rely on him to pitch in whenever some- thing important comes up. 4. John is selfish. Frequently he puts his own wants and desires ahead of his friends'. He seldom goes out of his way for anyone and even when he does he usually does it grudgingly. Somehow John always manages to put himself first. 48 49 Suppose a good friend of yours wanted to find out as much as he could about John. Write down what you know, think, and feel about him. Please take no more than 5 minutes. UNUSUAL USES UNUSUAL USES In this task you are to list as many unusual uses as you can think of for a common object. Your answers do not have to be complete sentences. You may use short phrases. Work as rapidly as you can. You will be given four minutes to work on each object. 50 51 List as many unusual uses as you can think of for a paperclip. Write each use on a separate line. O \D 00 \I Ch U1 J:- L» N H O C O O O H H [—4 |-" N H LA) [—1 4':- 15. l6. 17. l8. l9. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. STOP HERE. WAIT FOR FURTHER INSTRUCTIONS. 52 List as many unusual uses as you can think of for a newspaper. Write each use on a separate line. OKOQDQONU'IvaJNH [—1 H ._l l'-‘ N |._a b.) H .5 H U'l [—1 ON [.1 \l |—' (I) |_| \D N O O N 1.4 N N N U) 0 N .5 o 25. STOP HERE. WAIT FOR FURTHER INSTRUCTIONS. CRANO- BETT INGHAUS MEASURE CRANO-BETTINGHAUS MEASURE OBJECT JUDGMENT TASK The purpose of this section of the study is to measure the meanings of certain things to various people by having them judge them against a series of descriptive scales. In taking this test, please make your judgments on the basis of what these things mean to yep, On several pages of this test booklet you will find concepts to be judged, and beneath each a set of scales. You are to rate the concept on each of these scales in order. If you feel that the concept is very closely related to one end of the scale you should place your X-mark as follows: President Nixon (is) Fair :X : : : : : : : Unfair Fair :_:_:__:_:_:__:_l(_: Unfair If you feel that the concept is quite closely related to one end of the scale (but not extremely related), you should place your mark as follows: George Romney (is) Strong : :X : : : : : : Weak x 2 (D w W Strong If the concept seems only slightly related to one side as opposed to the other side (but is not really neutral), then you should mark as follows: N.A.A.C.P. (is) Active : : :X : : : : : Passive Active :__}__3__3__3_z}__}__} Passive 53 54 If you consider the concept to be neutral on the scale, both sides of the scale equa11y_associated with the concept, or if the scale is completely irrelevant, unrelated to the concept, then you should place your mark in the middle space, as shown below: The American Flag (is) Safe : : : : x: : : : Dangerous IMPORTANT: (1) Place your X-marks in the middle of spaces, not on the boundaries: This Not This (2) Be sure you check every scale for every concept--do not omit any. (3) Never put more than one X-mark on a single scale. Make each scale item a separate and independent judgment. Once you have made a judgment, move on to the next one, do not look back, or consider past judgments. WDrk at fairly high speed through this test. Do not worry or puzzle over individual items. There are no "right" or "wrong" answers. It is your first impression, your immediate "feelings" about the concept and scale that we want. On the other hand, please do not be careless, because we want your true impressions. Simple Honest Clean Pleasant Active Fragrant Kind Fast Soft Loose 55 LEGALIZED ABORTION Complex Dishonest Dirty Unpleasant Passive Foul Cruel Slow Loud Tight Simple Honest Clean Pleasant Active Fragrant Kind Fast Soft Loose 56 LEGALIZATION OF MARIJUANA Complex Dishonest Dirty Unpleasant Passive Foul Cruel Slow Loud Tight Simple Honest Clean Pleasant Active Fragrant Kind Fast Soft LOOSE 57 SPIRO AGNEW O. Complex Dishonest Dirty Unpleasant Passive Foul Cruel Slow Loud Tight Simple Honest Clean Pleasant Active Fragrant Kind Fast Soft Loose GUN CONTROL 58 LAWS Complex Dishonest Dirty Unpleasant Passive Foul Cruel Slow Loud Tight 59 SUPREME COURT Simple : : : : : : : : Complex Honest : : : Dishonest Clean : : Dirty Pleasant : : : : : : Unpleasant Active : : : : : : : : Passive Fragrant : : : : : ° Foul Kind : : : : : : : Cruel Fast : : : : : : : Slow Soft : : : : : Loud Loose : : : : : : : : Tight Simple Honest Clean Pleasant Active Fragrant Kind Fast Soft Loose 60 MEDICARE Complex Dishonest Dirty Unpleasant Passive Foul Cruel Slow Loud Tight Simple Honest Clean Pleasant Active Fragrant Kind Fast Soft LOOSE 61 THE BLACK PANTHERS O. Complex Dishonest Dirty Unpleasant Passive Foul Cruel Slow Loud Tight Simple Honest Clean Pleasant Active Fragrant Kind Fast Soft Loose FRATERNITIES 62 Complex Dishonest Dirty Unpleasant ‘1? Passive Foul Cruel Slow Loud Tight Simple Honest Clean Pleasant Active Fragrant Kind Fast Soft Loose 63 DRAFT LOTTERY Complex Dishonest Dirty Unpleasant Passive Foul Cruel Slow Loud Tight 64 INTE RCOLLEGIATE ATHLETICS Simple : Complex Honest : : : : : : : : Dishonest Clean : : : : : : : : Dirty Pleasant : : : Unpleasant Active : : : : : : : : Passive Fragrant : : : : : : Foul Kind : : : : : : : : Cruel Fast : : : : : : : : Slow Soft : : : : : : : : Loud Loose : : : : : : Tight INTERPERSONAL TOPICAL INVENTORY INDIVIDUAL-TOPICAL INVENTORY (Form A) INSTRUCTIONS You will be given some situations and topics to which we would like you to respond. The responses are given in pairs. You are to choose one response from each pair. Choose the response that most closely fits your opinion of feeling and indicate your choice by circling the letter "A" or "B" corresponding to the response chosen. Always choose one member of each pair. Never choose both members of the pair and do not skip over any of the pairs. If you agree with both, choose the one you agree with most strongly. If you do not agree with either, choose the one you find the least disagreeable of the two. Example: Here is an example of the way the questions will be asked and the way they should be answered. The manner in which you will indicate your choice between the two given responses is illustrated below: When I am confused . . . Pair No. (i) B I try to find a solution and I completely ignore the fact end the confusion. I am confused. (ii) A I break out into a nervous sweat. I remain calm at all times. How to rsspond:' First: Decide which response you agree with most. 65 ‘.,1.. ._ '.~.'.' g}! 66 Second: Indicate which response you agree with most by circling the identifying letter. Thus, if in comparing the first pair of statements, you agree with the statement, "I try to find a solution and end the confusion," more than with the statement, "I completely ignore the fact that I am confused," you would circle the letter "A" (above the chosen statement). Having chosen one (never both, never neither) statement from the first pair of statements, you would then move on to the second pair. If, in considering the second pair, you find that you agree more with the statement, "I remain clam at all times," (as compared to the statement, "I break out into a nervous sweat"), you would circle the letter "B." On the pages that follow there are 36 different pairs of re- sponses. There are six pairs to a side of a page and pairs appear on both Sides of the psges. You are to select one response from each pair, the one that more accurately shows your opinion or feeling and record your choice by circling the letter indicating the statement chosen. Be frank and indicate, in each case, your true feeling or opinion or the reaction which you actually would make in the situation. Do ppt_indicate how you should feel or act; rather, indicate how you ds_fee1 and act. Make sure that you are aware of the situation or topic that each pair of responses refers to. You will find the situation or topic identified at the top of each page. All items on the page refer to the situation or topic appearing at the top of that page. When you are finished, your paper should contain 36 circles. Check back and make sure that you have made 36 choices, no more no less. Remember: (1) Respond only once for each pair; that is, choose one member of the pair, never both, never neither. Indicate your choice by circling either "A" or "B." (2) Items appear on both sides of the page. (3) When you are finished you should have made 36 circles. Work at your own rate of speed but work straight through the inventory without stopping. Once you have completed a page do not return to it. YOU MAY BEGIN 67 I. Imagine that someone has criticized you. Choose the response from each pair that comes closest to your feelings about such criticism. Indicate your choice by circling either "A" or "B." When I am criticized . . . Pair No.i (l) A B I try to take the criticism, think I try to accept the criticism about it, and value it for what it but often find that it is not is worth. Unjustified criticism justified. People are too quick is as helpful as justified criti- to criticize something because cism in discovering what other it doesn't fit their standards. people's standards are. (2) A B I try to determine whether I was It could possibly be that there right or wrong. I examine my be- is some misunderstanding about havior to see if it was abnormal. something I did or said. After Criticism usually indicates that we both explain our viewpoints, I have acted badly and tends to we can probably reach some sort make me aware of my own bad points. of compromise. (3) A B I listen to what the person says I feel that either I'm not right, and try to accept it. At any or the person who is criticizing rate, I will compare it to my me is not right. I have a talk own way of thinking and try to with that person to see what's understand what it means. right or wrong. (4) A B I usually do not take it with At first I feel that it is unfair good humor. Although, at times, and that I know what I am doing, constructive criticism is very but later I realize that the good, I don't always think that person criticizing me was right the criticizer knows what he is and I am thankful for his advice. talking about. I realize that he is just trying to better my actions. 68 Pair No. (5) A I try to ask myself what advan- tages this viewpoint has over mine. Sometimes both views have their advantages and it is better to combine them. Criti- cism usually helps me to learn better ways of dealing with others. B I am very thankful. Often I don't see my own errors because I am too engrossed in my work at the time. An outsider can judge and help me correct the errors. Criticism in everyday life usu- ally hurts my feelings, but I know it is for my own good. (6) A It often has little or no effect on me. I don't mind constructive criticism too much, but I dislike destructive criticism. Destruc- tive criticism should be ignored. B I try to accept and consider the criticism. Sometimes it has caused me to change myself; at other times I have felt that the criticism didn't really make much sense. 2. Imagine that you are in doubt. Choose the response from each pair that comes closest to your feelings about such doubt. Indicate your choice by circling "A" or "B." When I am in doubt . . . (7) A I become uncomfortable. Doubt can cause confusion and make one do a poor job. When one is in doubt he should ask and be sure of himself. B I find myself wanting to remove the doubt, but this often takes time. I may ask for help or advice if I feel that my ques- tions won't bother the other person. (8) A I don't get too upset about it. I don't like to ask someone else unless I have to. It's better to discover the correct answer on your own. B I usually go to someone who knows the correct answer to my ques- tion. Sometimes I go to a book which will set me straight by removing the doubt. Ll 69 Pair No. A I first try to reason things out and check over the facts. Often I approach others to get ideas that will provide a solution. (9) B I think things over, ask ques- tions, and see what I can come up with. Often several answers are reasonable and it may be difficult to settle on one. (10) A B I realize that I'll have to I usually try to find out what decide on the correct answer on others think, especially my my own. Others try to be help- friends. They may not know ful, but often do not give me the answer, but they often give the right advice. I like to me some good ideas. judge for myself. (11) A B I look over the problem and try I try to get some definite infor- to see why there is a doubt. I mation as soon as possible. try to figure things out. Some- Doubt can be bad if it lasts times I just have to wait awhile too long. It's better to be for an answer to come to me. sure of yourself. (12) A I consider what is best in the given situation. Although one should not rush himself when in doubt, he should certainly try to discover the right answer. B I act according to the situation. Sometimes doubt can be more ser- ious than at other times and many of our serious doubts must go unanswered. 70 3. Imagine that a friend has acted differently toward you. Choose the response from each pair that comes closest to your feelings about such an action. Indicate your choice by circling either "A" or "B." When a friend acts differently toward me . . . Pair No. (13) A B I am not terribly surprised I am usually somewhat surprised because people can act in many but it doesn't bother me very different ways. We are dif- much. I usually act the way I. ferent people and I can't feel toward others. People worry expect to understand all his too much about others' actions reasons for acting in different and reactions. ways. (14) A B I find out why. If I have done I feel that I may have caused something wrong I will try to him to act in a different way. straighten out the situation. Of course, he may have other If I think he's wrong, I expect reasons for acting differently him to clear things up. which would come out in time. (15) A B I first wonder what the trouble It is probably because he has had is. I try to look at it from a bad day, which would explain his viewpoint and see if I might this different behavior; in other be doing something to make him cases he may just be a changeable act differently toward me. kind of person. (16) A B It is probably just because I try to understand what his dif- something is bothering him. I ferent actions mean. I can learn might try to cheer him up or to more about my friend if I try to help him out. If these things figure out why he does things. didn't work I would just wait Sometimes the reasons may not be for him to get over it. very clear. 71 Pair No. (17) A B There has to be a definite I usually let him go his way and reason. I try to find out I go mine. If a friend wants to this reason, and then act act differently that's his busi- accordingly. If I'm right ness, but it's my business if I I'll let him know it. If he's don't want to be around when wrong, he should apologize. he's that way. (18) A B I don't get excited. People I like to get things back to change and this may cause dif- normal as soon as possible. It ferences. It is important to isn't right for friends to have have friends, but you can't differences between them. Who- expect them to always be the ever is at falut should same. straighten himself out. 4. Think about the topic of people in general. Choose the response from each pair that comes closest to your thoughts about people. Indicate your choice by circling "A" or "B." This I believe about people . . . (19) A B Whatever differences may exist People can learn from those who between persons, they can usu- have different ideas. Other ally get along if they really people usually have some infor- want to. Although their ideas mation or have had some experi- may not agree, they probably ence which is interesting and still have something in common. can add to one's knowledge. (20) A B People can act in all sorts of Each person should be able to ways. No single way is always decide the correct thing for best, although at certain times himself. There are always a few a particular action might be choices to be made and the indi- wiser than others. vidual himself is in the best position to pick the right one. 72 Pair No. A Some people think they know what's best for others and try to give advice. These people shouldn't make suggestions unless asked for help. (21) B There are certain definite ways in which people should act. Some don't know what the stand- ards are and therefore need to be straightened out. A I can tell if I am going to get along with a person very soon after meeting him. Most people act either one way or another and usually it is not difficult to say what they are like. (22) B It's hard for me to say what a person is like until I've known him a long time. People are not easy to understand and often act in unpredictable ways. A People have an outside appearance that usually isn't anything like what can be found on the inside, if you search long and hard enough. (23) B Each person is an individual. Although some people have more good or bad points than others, no one has the right to change them. A People can be put into categories on the basis of what they're really like. ,Knowing the way a person really is helps you to get along with him better. (24) B People are unlike one another in many respects. You can get along with people better and better understand them if you are aware of the differences. 73 5. Think about the general topic of leaders. Choose the response from each pair that comes closest to your thoughts about leaders. Indicate your choice by circling either "A" or "B." Leaders . . . Pair No. (25) A B Leaders do not always make the Leaders are necessary in all right decisions. In such cases, cases. If a leader cannot make it is wise for a man to look out the right decisions another for his own welfare. should be found who can. (26) A B Leaders cannot provide all the Leaders make decisions sometimes answers. They are like other without being sure of themselves. people--they have to try to We should try to understand this figure out what action is neces- and think of ways to help them sary and learn from their mis- out. takes. (27) A B I like a leader who is aware of A person should be able to put how the group feels about things. his confidence in a leader and Such a leader should not lead feel that the leader can make any two groups in exactly the the right decision in a diffi- same way. cult situation. (28) A B There are times when a leader A leader should give those under shouldn't make decision for him some opportunity to make those under him. The leader decisions, when possible. At has the power to decide things, times, the leader is not the but each man has certain rights best judge of a situation and also. should be willing to accept what others have to say. 74 Pair No. (29) A B Some leaders are good, others Leaders cannot be judged easily. are quite poor. Good leaders Many things go to make up good are those who know what is leadership. Most people fall right for the men under them. short in some way or another, These leaders deserve the re— but that is to be expected. spect of every man. (30) A B Leaders are needed more at cer- Some people need leaders to make tain times than at others. their decisions. I prefer to be Even though people can work out an individual and decide for many of their own problems, a myself, when possible. Most leader can sometimes give val- leaders won't let you do this. uable advice. 6. Imagine that someone has found fault with you. Choose the response from each pair that comes closest to your feelings about such a situa- tion. Indicate your choice by circling either "A" or "B." When other people find fault with me . . . (31) A B It means that someone dislikes It means that someone has noticed something I'm doing. People who something and feels he must speak find fault with others are not out. It may be that we don't always correct. Each person has agree about a certain thing. Al- his own ideas about what's right. though we both have our own ideas we can talk about it. (32) A B I first wonder if they are ser- If enough people point out the ious and why they have found same fault, there must be some- fault with me. I then try to thing to it. I try to rid my- consider what they've said and self of the fault, especially if make changes if it will help. the criticizers are people "in- the-know." 75 Pair No. A They have noticed something about me of which I am not aware. Although criticism may be hard to take, it is often helpful. (33) B They are telling me something they feel is correct. Often they may have a good point which can help me in my own thinking. At least it's worthwhile to con- siderrit. A I may accept what is said or I may not. It depends upon who is pointing out the fault. Sometimes it's best-to just stay out of sight. (34) B I accept what is said if it is worthwhile, but sometimes I don't feel like changing any- thing. I usually question the person. A I like to find out what it means; Since people are different from one another, it could mean almost anything. A few people just like to find fault with others but there's usually something to be learned. (35) B There is something to be changed. Either I am doing something wrong or else they don't like what I'm doing. Whoever is at fault should be informed so that the situation can be set straight. A I don't mind if their remarks are meant to be helpful, but there are too many people who find fault just to give you a hard time. (36) B . It often means that they're try- ing to be disagreeable. People get this way when they've had a bad day. I try to examine their remarks in terms of what's behind them. CHECK AND MAKE SURE THAT YOU'VE CHOSEN ONE MEMBER OF EACH PAIR. (A TOTAL OF 36 CIRCLES) "Illl)llllllllllllfS