{IrIHWII

122
018

 

HTHS

PHYS-{QUE AND PERSONALEW 9¥EFERENCES
BETWEEN MALE COLLEGE CIGARETTE
SMQKEM AND NON-SMOKERS

Thesis {tor €519 Degree of M. A.
MICHIGAN NATE UNIVERSITY

Dean W‘ Piath
1959

was IIIIIIIIIIIZIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

10393 7854

 

LIBR. 4.1: x 1
Min ‘ioh m 3U“ ;
Univcrs 5W ij

 

. l1 ‘1 I‘ve v 7..
“Mi 3 1! D 6]
4

 

PHYSIQUE AND PERSONALITY DIFFERENCES
BETWEEN MALE COLLEGE CIGAREPTE SMOKERS AND NON-SMOKERS

by

Dean R. Plath

A.THESIS

Submitted to the College of Science and Arts
Michigan State University of Agriculture and
Applied Science in partial fulfillment of

the requirements for the degree of

MASTER OF ARTS

Department of Psychology

1959

DEAN W. PLNPH ABSTRACP

The general purpose of this study was to determine
if college male cigarette smokers differ from non-smokers
in certain measures of physique and personality. Four
hypotheses were derived and tested; these hypotheses
predicted that cigarette smokers differ from non-smokers
with respect to l) physique, 2) personal characteristics,
3) personality traits, and h) college grades. Subjects
utilized were “#6 undergraduate students at Michigan State
University.

The relationship of physique to smoking was studied
by classifying subjects by somatotype and smoking amount.
The results indicated that the ectomorph group smoked
significantly more than the mesomorph group.

Data relevant to personal characteristics were
gathered by questionnaire. The results of statistical
tests indicated a strong positive relationship between
smoking and drinking, and no relationship between smoking
and parental influence, gum chewing, and visits to the
University Health Center.

Personality differences between non-smokers and
heavy smokers were tested by comparing mean scores of each
group on an inventory of 22 personality traits. Seven
significant differences were obtained. With respect to

non-smokers, heavy smokers scored high in sexuality and

111

DEAN W. PLNPH ABSTRACT

liberalism, and low in sensory awareness, warmth, organiza-
tion, ambition, and scientific values. A new inventory

was derived which discriminated significantly between non-
smokers and heavy smokers.

Mean grade point averages for a group of non-smokers
and heavy smokers were obtained and compared. No signifi-
cant difference was found.

A comparison of the results with other studies was
made, and implications of the results for further research
were discussed, with particular emphasis on the causes of

smoking, and the relationship of smoking to lung cancer.

Approved

Date ‘fizgfi \i \“kgci

iv

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

The author wishes to express his genuine
appreciation to Dr. Henry Clay Smith for his
helpful guidance and assistance in the prepara-
tion of this thesis.

D.W.P.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page
LISTOFTABLES...................viii
SECTION

INTRODUCTION .... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . l
The Extent of Smoking . . . . . . . . . . . l
The Cigarette Theory of Lung Cancer . . . . 2
Potential weaknesses of the Theory . . . . . . 3
Psychological Factors in Cancer . . . . . . . 4
Possible Significance of these Studies . . . . 5
Hypotheses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

maop O O Q 0 O O O O O O O O O O 0 O O 0 O O O 10
Subjects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Measurement of Smoking . . . . . . . . . . . . ll

Physique . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Personal Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Personality. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Grade-Point Averages . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

RESUIE S . O C C I O O O I O O C O O O O I I O O O 16

Differences in Physique . . . . . . . . . . . l6
Differences in Personal Characteristics. . . . l9
Differences in Personality . . . . . . . . . . 22
Differences in Grade-Point Averages. . . . . . 27

vi

SECTION Page
DISCUSSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
A Composite View of the Two Groups . . . . . 28
Comparison of Results with Other Studies . . 29
Implications of the Results for Further

Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
REFERENCES 36
APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

Appendix A--Index of Height over Cube Root
of Weight . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Appendix B--SK Scale . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

Appendix C--Summary of the H.C.S. Inventory . #4
Appendix D-qNorms of the 8.0.3. Inventory . . 47
Appendix E--SK Scale, Revised . . . . . . . . #8

vii

TABLE

II

III

IV

VI

VII
VIII

LIST OF‘TABLES

Size of the Samples Used in the Study . . . .

Somatotype Means of Smoking and Tests
of Mean Differences . . . . . . . . . . . .

Non-Smokers and Smokers Classified as
'Thinpfleavy' and 'ShortJTall” . . . . . . .

Relationship Between Parental and
Student Smoking . . . . . . .

Relationship Between Drinking and Smoking . .

Mean Differences of Heavy Smokers and Non-
Smokers on the H.C.S. Inventory . . . . . .

SK Scale Means, and'Tests of Mean Differences

Somatotype Group, Amount of Smoking, and
Scores on the Smoking Scales . . . . . . .

viii

Page
11

17

18

20
21

23
25

26

INTRODUCTION

The general purpose of the present study was to
determine whether or not male college cigarette smokers
differed from non-smokers in certain measures of physique
and personality characteristics. The question is of some
importance because it bears upon an expensive, widespread
habit, and because of the increasing number of studies
which suggest an association of one kind or another between
this habit and the incidence of lung cancer. It was hoped
that the study might shed new light on the reasons for smde-
ing itself, and might serve to clarify, or suggest a new
approach to, the cigarette smoking-lung cancer hypothesis.

The Extent of Smoking
Statistical studies have verified that cigarette

smoking is on the increase in the United States. A report
issued by the U. S. Department of Agriculture Marketing
Service (17) indicated that the number of cigarettes manu-
factured in the United States has risen from 55,022.8
million in 1922 to an estimated figure of 4b2,363.4 miLUen
in 1957. The cigarette consumption per capita in the
United States, 15 years or older, has risen from 7H7 in
1920 to an estimated 3,uu9 in 1957. ’

The U.£L Public Health Service, after an extensive
survey of smoking patterns in the United States in 1955 fl+L

2
estimated that 49 per cent of the male population, 18 years
of age or older, are regular cigarette smokers. The sur-
vey also revealed that American men are acquiring the smok-
ing habit at a progressively earlier age. For example, of
those men surveyed in the age group 55-6u, the median age
at which smoking began was 19.3 years. For the age group

25-3#, the median age was 17.9 years.

The Cigarette Theory of ngg ngcer
Within the past fifteen years, attention has been

focused on the rapid increase in lung cancer, particularly
in the so-called industrial nations. More important for
this study are the research projects here and abroad which
have suggested that the causes of lung cancer might be de-
pendent upon some external factor in the environment.
Northrup (ll) acknowledged two convincing arguments in
support of this environmental agent theory. First, he
cited the sudden appearance of thousands of cases of lung
cancer annually within a single generation, as compared
with the negligible recorded incidence of the disease
prior to the twentieth century. Second, he pointed out
that lung cancer has been reported to be much higher in
certain occupations, and in heavily industrialized areas.
By contrast, the lung cancer rate appears to be minimal
in the rural areas.

The cigarette theory of lung cancer rests upon sim-

ilar arguments, and the press and periodicals in this coun-

try have presented great numbers of articles linking

cigarette smoking with lung cancer. Yet a review of the
more scientifically oriented literature revealed that most
research workers are extremely reluctant to accept the

cigarette-lung cancer hypothesis.

Potential Weaknesses of theITheory
Russ (12) reviewed many of the studies made in the
area, all of which indicated that there were more smokers
in the lung cancer group than in the control groups. He
cautioned, however, that one cannot conclude that smoking

is the cause of the disease. It may be, he suggested as

 

one alternative, that people take to smoking more readily
if they are of that general physiological type (if there
is such a thing) which contracts cancer of the lung.‘__'$
Hammond and Horn (5), in a study of smoking in re-
lation to death rates, found that the death rate of cig-
arette smokers was far higher than the death rate of men
who had never smoked cigarettes. Yet, the deaths ascribed
to cancer accounted for only one-quarter of the excess
deaths among cigarette smokers, while deaths ascribed to
coronary artery disease accounted for over one-half of the
excess. Thus, although the death rate of cigarette smokers
was higher than non-smokers, the disease causing the excess

deaths was much more likely to have been coronary artery

disease than lung cancer.

Northrup (11) suggested other factors worthy of

consideration in this area. For example, he pointed out

4

that improved methods of diagnosis might account for much
of the difference between lung cancer statistics today and
thirty years ago, and that clinicians have frequently con-
fused lung cancer with tuberculosis. (He noted with.in-
terest that as reports of death from lung cancer have gone
up, reports of death from tuberculosis have gone down). He
indicated further that the incidence of lung cancer in the
various states is directly proportional to the diagnostic

medical resources of the communities within the states.

Psychological Factors in Cancer

Other research workers have explored the possibility
of psychological factors operating in the development of
cancer, as opposed to external factors such as cigarette
smoking. Blumberg (l) undertook a study which investigated
the possible relevance of certain personality variables
to the rate of growth in neoplastic diseases. His sample
of cancer patients was divided into "fast” and “slow”
groups in relation to the expectancy for each patient's
type of cancer. The MMPI was administered to each patient,
and highly significant differences were obtained between
the fast and slow cases. The fast growing cases were
described as having more defensiveness, a higher anxiety
level, and less ability to reduce tension through motor
discharge than the slow group.

Meerloo (10) studied the psychological implications
of malignant growth and suggested that stress, mental shock,

or mal-adaptation may be causative factors in cancer.
Tromp (2) acknowledged the strong relationship

between cigarette smoking and lung cancer, but refused

to list smoking as a cause. He stated that psychological

stresses among heavy smokers may be a more direct cause

of cancer.

Possible Siggificance of These Studies
The arguments presented above serve to highlight

the potential weaknesses of those reports which posit smok-
ing as a causative agent in lung cancer. These weaknesses
would become even more significant if it could be shown
that cigarette smokers differ from non-smokers in certain
aspects of physique and personality. Were such differences
found, they would suggest the possibility that it is these
differences in physique and personality that are causative
agents in both the smoking habit and lung cancer. That is,
it might then be hypothesized that smoking is a corollary
of lung cancer, rather than a cause of it, with both of
these phenomena originating, in part at least, from certain

physical and psychological factors within the individual.

messes
With this in mind, four hypotheses, each dealing
with a potential difference between smokers and non-smokers,
were formulated and tested in the present study. These
hypotheses are presented below, together with summaries of

the studies which furnished the basis for each hypothesis.

Hypothesis I. Male college cigarette smokers

differ from non-smokers in relation to certa;n measures

9f physique,

The work of Sheldon furnished the basis for this
hypothesis. In his extensive studies of physique and
temperament, Sheldon (13, lb) derived three varities of
physique, each with related indices of temperament. With
reference to the use or effect of tobacco smoking, he sug-
gested from his observations that the endomorphic-viscero-
tonic person would be the most likely of the three types
to engage in tobacco smoking. Sheldon reported that the
habit of constant dependence upon tobacco is very common
among these persons, and that the use of tobacco appears
to agree with them.

The ectomorphic-cerebrotonic person, on the other
hand, would be least likely to engage in smoking. Sheldon
observed that these persons often show a marked sensitivity
to tobacco, and that the cerebrotonic constitution cannot

stand up to regular smoking.

Hypothesis II. Male college cigarette smokerg
differ from non-smokers in relation to the smoking habits

of their_parentsygand to certain other personal char-

W

Specifically, it was hypothesized that the parents

of college smokers engage in smoking more than the parents

of non-smokers; that college smokers would engage more

7
frequently in gum-chewing, and drinking of alcoholic bev-

erages; that college smokers would utilize the services
of the University Health Center more than non-smokers.

This hypothesis was drawn from the work of Earp
and McArthur, Waldron, and Dickenson. Earp (3), in a study
of male college students, concluded that the smoking habits
of the father are positively related to the smoking habits
of the son. McArthur, g; 2;. (9) hypothesized that start-
ing to smoke is largely brought about by the person's
social environment--as this suggestion is in accord with
Earp's conclusion, the first part of Hypothesis II was
formulated accordingly.

McArthur, g£._l, (9) also obtained data which sug-
gested that smoking is correlated with the psychoanalytic
concept of orality. In this vein, they obtained positive
correlations between smoking and the following: drinking,
preference for sugary foods, and a gain in weight. With
this suggestion as a basis, the second part of Hypothesisll
was formulated.

Although no articles were noted which dealt with
susceptibility to minor diseases of smokers as compared
with non-smokers, many have assumed smokers to be more
susceptible to common colds and other minor ailments than
non-smokers. Hence, it was attempted to verify this as-

sumption in the study.

Hypothesis III. Ha e c e o d r

non-smokers in relation to certain mgasures of personality.

I.

 

8

The article by McArthur, Waldron, and Dickenson (9)
is most pertinent to this hypothesis. The authors surveyed
a sample of Harvard University alumni in relation to psy-
chological aspects of smoking, and suggested the following
as characteristics of the non-smoker: he appears to be a
product of a particular American sub-culture, often of
lower-middle class origins, and upwardly mobile; he often
is pious and "Inner-Directed;" he has introjected the
morals of his youth; he is serious in nature and perhaps
an introvert; he approves of scientific values rather than
business values, and is often himself a scientist or an
engineer. Vallance (18), in a study using the Hull Pos-
tural Movement Recorder, found smokers somewhat less
positively suggestible than non-smokers. Lawton and
Phillips (8) found smokers to exceed non-smokers in various
indicies related to the presence of nervous traits. Col-
lectively, these articles were felt by the author to justify
the formulation of Hypothesis III for further testing.

Hypothesis IV. Male college cigarette gmokers

differ from nongggpkers in relation to college grade point
averages.

 

Earp (3), in his study of students at Antioch
College, found an "indisputable" association between the
smoking habit and inferior scholarship. This finding

struck the author as rather curious, for in his own

limited experience as an instructor, he has failed to
observe any sucn tendency. Accordingly, it was decided

to verify this finding in the present study.

METHOD

The data used in this study were collected by the
use of written questionnaires distributed to the subjects,
with the exception of the grade-point averages which were
obtained from the Registrar's office of the University. In
general, the subjects were divided into two or more groups,
depending upon the variable involved; mean differences
between the groups were tested for significance using con-

ventional statistical techniques.

Subjects
The subjects for this study consisted of a total of

##6 students at Michigan State University, enrolled in an
undergraduate psychology course entitled, "The Psychology
of Business and Personnel.” As the vast majority of the
subjects were males, no females were used throughout the
study. The male subjects ranged in age from 19 to 32 yeans
and in classification from sophomores to seniors. The sam-
ples were taken from the above course during the Fall,
Winter and Spring quarters of the academic year 1957-1958,
and from the Fall and Winter quarters, 1958-1959. The

size of each of these samples is indicated in Table I below.

11

TABLE I
SIZE OF THE SAMPLES USED IN‘THE STUDY

W

 

Sample Number N
one 171
two 166
three . 109

 

Measurement of Smoking

As used in this study, "smoking“ refers only to
cigarette smoking; those subjects who indicated they smoked
a pipe, cigars, or used snuff were not included in the
samples. The number of cigarettes smoked by each subject
was determined by the use of a five-choice item included
in a questionnaire administered to all subjects. This

item read as follows:

Please indicate the number of cigarettes you smoke

per day.

(1) never smoke cigarettes

(2) 1/ h pack or less per day

(3) more than 1/u pack, less than 1 pack per day
(4) 1 pack to 2 packs per day

(5) more than 2 packs per day

In several of the tests undertaken, it was necessary
to divide the subjects into various groups, defined for

purposes of this study as follows:

”non-smokers“ those subjects who indicated
that they did not smoke at all.

12

"moderate smokers" those subjects who indicated
that they smoked more than)

l/h pack, and less than 1 pack
per day.

"heavy smokers“ those subjects who indicated
that they smoked 1 pack or
more per day.

I'smokers" a combination of moderate and
heavy smokers.

Physigue
Data relevant to the first hypothesis was obtained

by classifying subjects into three groups according to
physique, dichotomizing each group into non-smokers and
smokers, and testing for differences between the groups
by chi-square.

Subjects used were drawn from the second and third
samples. Somatotypes were determined, using the methods
advocated by Sheldon (15) and Smith (16) as a guide, which
involve computing the index of each subject's height di-
vided by the cube root of his weight. This index was then
referred to in a condensed table of somatotypes (Appemfix.A)
corresponding to a given height/weight index. Where sev-
eral somatotypes were possible under a given index, sel-
ection was made on the basis of the subject's estimation
of his physique, obtained by the subject's response to a
five-choice item appended to a questionnaire (Appendix B).

Subjects were then classified into three groups:
predominantly mesomorph (N I 69); predominantly endomorph
(N ' 25); and predominantly ectomorph (N = 51). To be

13
thus classified, the subject's number indicating his dom-
inant type must have been 5 or higher. For example, a
somatotype of 6-3-1 would be classified as endomorph and
included in the study; a somatotype of 4-3-3 would not be
included. The study was then carried on as indicated in

the first paragraph of this section.

W

The data relevant to the second hypothesis concerned
the smoking habits of the parents of the subjects, the ex-
tent to which the subjects drank alcoholic beverages and
used chewing gum, and the number of visits made to the
University Health Center by the subjects. All of this in-
formation was obtained by questionnaire administered to
each subject. (Appendix B).

Analysis of smoking and its relation to these var-
iables was done by chi-square. The subjects were divided
into three groups: non-smokers (N s 68), moderate smokers
(N 3 8b), and heavy smokers (N I 48). The relationship
between these three groups and each of the variables in-

dicated was then tested for significance.

Personality

The general procedure employed relevant to Hypothe-
sis III was to obtain two groups of sutuects, non-smokers
and heavy smokers, which were then compared with each other
on measures of personality.

The subjects used in this test were drawn from the

1h

first sample. From this sample all but non-smokers and
heavy smokers were withdrawn; subjects on whom complete
information was not available were eliminated. Of the
remaining subjects, 50 were drawn from each category by
utilization of a table of random numbers (19).

The measures of personality used consisted of
twenty-two scales of personality traits developed by
Dr. H. C. Smith, hereafter referred to as the H.C.S. Inven-
tory. Each scale consisted of 30 True-False statements,
with the exception of the Breadth of Interest scale which
included 60 statements. The names given the 22 traits are
listed below. A brief description of each of these traits

may be found in Appendix C.

1. Activity 12. Artistic Values
2. Sensory Awareness 13. Scientific Values.
3. Sexuality 14. Religious Values
4. Emotionality 15. Liberalism
5. Optimism 16. Ambition
6. Expressiveness 17. Organization
7. Thinking 18. Emotional Control
8. Interests 19. Gregariousness
9. Self-Confidence 20. warmth
10. Self-Insight 21. Dominance
11. Economic Values 22. Conformity

Data pertinent to the derivation, consistency,
stability, and factor loadings of the scales were presented
in an unpublished master's thesis by Hershey (6) and need

not be reviewed here.
Mean scores were computed for both the non-smoker

and the heavy smoker groups on each of the 22 traits of

15
personality, and the differences between the means were
tested fcr significance by use of the t test.

A cross-validation of the above tests for differ-
ences was undertaken by repeating the procedure above with
the second sample. Because of the smaller number of sub-
jects with complete data, an N of 36 was used for each

group.

Grade-Point Averages
A limited test of differences between college grade-

point averages of non-smokers and heavy smokers was at-
tempted. Subjects (N 8 25 each group) were selected at
random from the second sample groups of non-smokers and
heavy smokers. The all college grade-point average was
obtained for each subject in the two groups from the
Registrar's Office of the University. A mean grade-point
average for each group was then computed, and the mean

difference tested for significance.

RESULTS

The results of the tests of the hypotheses are
presented below, in order of their original presentation.
In certain cases, these findings suggested the need for
further research and exploration, which was undertaken.
The results of this work are included in the pertinent

sections.

Dgfferegces in Physigue

Hypothesis I stated that male college cigarette
smokers differ from non-smokers in certain measures of
physique. As a test of the hypothesis, a chi-square table
was drawn, including the three somatotypes divided into
non-smoker and smoker groups. Calculation of the chi-
square yielded a value which was significant at the .01
level of confidence.

To explore the differences further, the mean amount
of cigarette smoking for each of the three somatotype
groups was determined, and differences between these
means were tested for significance by the t test. The
means and values of t between the means are presented in

Table II.

17
TABLE II

SONATOTYPE MEANS OF SMOKING
AND'TESTS OF MEAN DIFFERENCES

 

 

 

 

 

 

Smoki
Somatotype "eafing Groups Compared t

Mesomorphe (N I 69) 2.20 Mesomorphs-Endomorphs . .16
Endomorphs (N I 25) 2.36 Endomorphs-Ectomorphs .l.#8
Ectomorphs (N I 51) 2.82 Ectomorphs-Mesomorphs .2-83*

 

*P I .01

The findings summarized in Table II indicated that
the ectomorph group smoked more than the endomorph group,
and significantly more than the mesomorph group. These
findings were at variance with Sheldon (lb), who character-
ized ectomorphs as highly sensitive to tobacco, and least

likely of the three somatotypes to engage in smoking.

Additiogal findiggs of differences in physigue
In view of the above, three additional attempts to

explore possible relationships between physique and smoktng
were made. Subjects used were drawn from samples two and
three combined. In the first attempt, 50 pairs of subjects
were drawn, each pair matched for height, and differing in
weight by at least 20 pounds. The pairs were split, thus
forming two groups, designated "thin" and "heavy." A 2x5
chi-square table was drawn, comparing the two groups and
the amount of smoking in each group.

In the second attempt, 50 pair of subjects were

drawn, each pair matched for weight (five pounds difference

18
or less), and differing in height by at least three inches.
'The pairs were split, thus forming two groups designated
"short" and "tall." A chi-square table similar to the
above, was drawn and computed.

The results of these two attempts to explore pos-
sible relationships between physique and smoking were not
statistically significant. They were, however, suggestive.
A better understanding of the comparisons might be obtained

by studying the data as expressed in a table of percentage&

TABLE III

NON—SMOKERS AND SMOKERS
CLASSIFIED AS WPHIN-HEAVY" AND "SHORTJTALL"

 

 

Control {6; Height Control for Weiggg

 

 

 

Group

Thin Heavy Short Tall
Non-smokers 28% 42% 36% 26%
Smokers 72% 58% 64% 79%
Total 100% 100i 100% 100%

 

It is seen that these results, although not signifi-
cant statistically, support the earlier findings that the
ectomorph group, which may be characterized as tall and
thin, smoked more than the other groups.

The third attempt to explore relationships between
physique and smoking stemmed from the author's concern over
the possibility of "subjectiveness" influencing the calcu-
lations of the somatotypes. It will be recalled that, in

certain cases, it was necessary to resort to the subject's

estimate of his physique to determine the somatotype.
Accordingly, this third attempt was restricted to more
objective data.

Subjects were ranked by the "height/cube root of
weight" index, and the extremes at both ends of the dis-
tribution selected to make up two groups: "low“ index
(N I 50), which included those subjects heavy in relation
to their height, and "high" index (N I 50), which included
those subjects "thin" in relation to their height. Each
group was then dichotomized by smoking amount intOothe
sub-groups "non-smokers" and "smokers." The data were then
tested for significance by chi-square. The results indi-
cated that the 'high' index group contained considerably
more smokers than the ”low“ index group. The chi-sQuare
value proved significant at the .01 level.

In summary, four different tests were made of
Hypothesis I, which stated that cigarette smokers differ
from non-smokers in respect to physique. Two of the tests
were suggestive, and the remaining two proved statistically
significant at the .01 level. It was concluded that the
data supported the hypothesis.

Differenges in Pegsona; Characteristics
Hypothesis II stated that male college cigarette
smokers differ from non-smokers in relation to the smoking
habits of their parents, and certain personal character-

istics, which included the use of chewing gum, drinking of

20

alcoholic beverages, and visits to the University Health
Center. The results of the tests of significance between
these variables and smoking amount were, with the excep—
tion of drinking, insignificant. A brief statement con-
cerning the findings relative to each variable is given

below.

Smoking Habits of thg Parenis
The findings relative to this variable, although

not significant, were of interest in that they suggested
a relationship opposite to that expected. Table IV sum-
marizes the data in terms of percentages. These findings
conflicted with those of Earp (3), who found a positive

relationship between smoking habits of father and son.

TABLE IV

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PARENTAL
AND STUDENT SMOKING (N I 200)

W
Student Smoking

 

 

Parental "'
Smoking Non- Moderate Heavy Total
Smokers Smokers Smokers
Neither Parent 30% 43% 27% 100%
Either Parent 34% 39% 27% 100%
Both Parents 39% 45% 16% 100%

 

Use of Chewigg Gum

The results of the test for a relationship between
use of gum and smoking (N = 200) were completely insignifi-

cant. The data suggested a zero relationship: of those

21

subjects who were non-smokers, #0 per cent did not use
chewing gum; of those subjects who were heavy smokers,

#0 per cent did not use gum.

Drinking Aicgholig Beverages
Analysis of the data suggested a very strong pos-

itive relationship between smoking and drinking. The chi-
square test relevant to this variable yielded a figure
significant at the .001 level. Table V summarizes the data

in terms of percentages.

 

 

 

 

TABLE V
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN DRINKING AND SMOKING

(N - 200)

Student Smoking
Drinking Non- Moderate Heavy Total

Smokers Smokers Smokers

Non-drinkers 735 20% 7% 100%
Moderate drinkers 33% “6% 21% 100%
Heavy drinkers 21% 37% 42% 100%

 

Visits to the Health Center
The data (N = 200) yielded results which suggested

a zero relationship between smoking and susceptibility to
minor diseases, as measured by visits to the Health Center.
For example, of the non-smokers, 66 per cent reported no
visits to the Health Center the previous quarter; of the
heavy smokers, 73 per cent reported no visits the previous

quarter.

22
In conclusion, the data relevant to the second
hypothesis indicated the following: substantiation of the
existence of a strong positive relationship between smoking
and drinking; rejection of a relationship between smoking
and parental influence, gum chewing, and susceptibility to

minor diseases.

Differences in Personality
Hypothesis III stated that male college cigarette

smokers differ from non-smokers in relation to certain
measures of personality. The results of the tests of mean
differences between non-smokers and heavy smokers are sum-
marized in Table VI, which ranks the trait differences by
descending values of t.

It is seen that heavy smokers differed significantly
from non-smokers on seven of the 22 traits: the smokers
were higher in sexuality and liberalism—~1ower in sensory
awareness, warmth, organization, ambition, and scientific
values. A cross-validation of these seven traits was under-
taken, limited by a smaller number (N = 36 each group),
Although none of the differences proved statistically
significant, all differences were in the same direction as

on the original test, with the exception of ambition.

The Smokigg Scaig

If there are personality differences between smokers
and non-smokers, one should be able to derive a personality

inventory on which the two groups should score differently.

23

TABLE VI
MEAN DIFFERENCES OF HEAVY SMOKERS (N = 50)

AND NON-SMOKERS (N = 50) ON THE H.C.S. INVENTORY

 

 

Mean Mean Mean
Personality Trait Heavy Non— Difference t
Smokers Smokers
Sexuality 18.3“ l“.7“ 3.60 “.00**
Sensory Awareness 16.56 18.9“ -2.38 3.39*‘
Liberalism 19.92 17.18 2.7“ 2.74**
Warmth 13.9“ 16.5“ -2.60 2.7“**
Organization 12.62 15.28 -2.66 2.“8*
Ambition 12.68 1“.78 -2.10 2.27*
Scientific Values 12.02 l“.60 -2.58 2.08*
Self—Confidence 15.08 12.56 2.52 1.95
Religious Values 13.20 15.93 -2.70 1.63
Conformity 1“.18 15.66 -1.“8 1.53
Self-Insight 16.82 16.02 0.80 1.“?
Breadth of Interests 27.50 29.“0 -l.90 1.16
Emotional Control 16.30 15.02 1.28 1.01
Thinking 14.32 15.2“ -0.92 .95
Dominance 18.3“ 17.30 1.0“ .92
Expressiveness 17.36 16.28 1.08 .78
Economic Values 16.56 17.1“ -0.58 .69
Optimism 18.2“ 18.90 -0.66 .60
Emotionality 1“.7“ 15.“6 -0.72 .51
Act1V1ty 18.7“ 18.““ 0.30 .35
Gregariousness 15.62 15.86 -0.2“ .20
Artistic Values 13.80 13.62 0.18 .10
{l1 P 3 .01
* P I .05

(For norms of the H.C.S. Inventory, see Appendix D).

2“

If successful, such a scale would serve as further valida-
tion of the original findings. Accordingly, a smoking
scale, hereafter referred to as the SK Scale, was derived
by selecting those statements on the H.C.S. Inventory which
best discriminated between heavy smokers and non-smokers.

Selection of statements was made on the basis of an
item-count comparison between the two groups in the first
sample, on each of the 690 statements. Phi coefficients
were then computed, converted to chi-square values, and re-
ferred to a chi-square table (19) for significance. The
statements were then ranked.by order of significance, and
the t0p 75 statements selected for incorporation into the
SH Scale. The level of significance for the statements
ranged from .001 to .25.

Thus derived, the SK Scale was administered to the
second sample. It was scored in terms of the heavy smokers'
response.

Validation of the SK Scale was determined by analysis
of variance of the scores. Three group means were used:
non-smokers (N I 30); moderate smokers (N = 30); and heavy
smokers (N I 30). The analysis yielded an F ratio which
was significant at the .01 level. The analysis was tested
for homogeneity of variance, with results that were not

significant.

Table VII summarizes the mean scores of the three

groups, and t tests of differences between these means.

25

TABLE VII
SK SCALE MEANS, AND‘TESTS OF MEAN DIFFERENCES

W

 

Mean

Group Score Groups Compared t
Non-Smokers ya.

Non-Smokers 35.5 Heavy Smokers 2.9“*
Non-Smokers yg.

Moderate Smokers 39,5 Moderate Smokers 2.54*
Moderate Smokers yg.

Heavy Smokers “0.1 Heavy Smokers .“0

 

*P = .05, raised to studentized range.

Revisign 9f the SK Scale

A revision of the SK Scale was undertaken in an
attempt to derive a shorter, more valid scale. The original
scale was shortened by eliminating those items on which the
response obtained was a reversal of the predicted response.
0f the remaining items, 36 were selected on the basis of
their discriminatory ability, and incorporated into a new
scale, hereafter referred to as the SH Scale, Revised (Ap-
pendix E).

The SK Scale, Revised, was then administered to the
third sample of students. The mean scores of the three

groups were as follows:

non-smokers (N = 21) 18.1
moderate smokers (N I 23) 19.1
heavy smokers (N I 12) 19.7

Tests for differences between these means, while con-

sistent with the findings of the original scale, were not

26

statistically significant. It should be noted, in this

respect, that the size of the sample was much smaller.

Physigue and Scores on the Smoking Scales
At this point, a method of cross-validating the

scales was apparent. It is recalled that, in the section
dealing with somatotypes, the mesomorphs smoked the least,
followed by the endomorphs and the ectomorphs. Accordingly,
if the smoking scales were valid, the mean scores for the
somatotype groups on the smoking scales should also fall in
the same.rank order. Table VIII summarizes the comparisons
indicated. The predicted rank order prevailed in all three

measures 0

TABLE VIII

SOHEIOTYPE GROUP, AMOUNT OF SMOKING,
AND SCORES ON'PHE SMOKING SCALES

 

 

Mean Mean Score Mean Score
Somatotype Smoking SK Scale SK Scale,Rev. .
Mesomorphs 2.2 (N = 69) 37.9 (N - “6) 17.6 (N“23)

Endomorphs 2.# (N i 25) 39.9 (N I 11) 18.4 (Ni-14)
Ectomorphs 2.8 (N 51) 39.3 (N - 3a) 20.0 (N =17)

 

In summary, data have been presented which revealed
significant differences between heavy smokers and non-
smokers on seven traits of personality. A cross-validation
study yielded results in a similar direction, with one ex-

ception. A personality inventory was derived which

2?

differentiated smokers from non-smokers at a level which
was statistically significant. It was concluded that the

data supported the hypothesis.

Differences in Gradegggint Averages

Hypothesis IV stated that male college cigarette
smokers differ from non-smokers in relation to college
grade-point averages. Grade-point averages at Michigan
State University are calculated on the following basis:
A equals four points, B equals three, C equals two, D equals
one, and F equals zero. On this basis, the mean grade-pom
average for each group was determined with the following

results:

Non-smokers (N = 25) 2.h9
Heavy smokers (N 3 25) 2.56

The test for a difference between these means was
not significant; a zero relationship was suggested. On
this basis, it was concluded that the data failed to support

the hypothesis.

DISCUSSION
In this section, an attempt is made to integrate
the findings of this study by devising a composite picture
of both the smoker and non-smoker groups. In addition, the
results obtained are compared with other studies, and im-
plications of the results for further research are discussed.

Weaknesses of the present study are indicated.

A Composite View of the Two Groupg

As contrasted to the non-smoking subjects, the
smoking subjects in the present study were most likely to
possess the following distinguishing characteristics: tall,
ectomorphic physiques which were thin in relation to body
height; personality traits that were high in sexuality and
liberalism, and low in sensory awareness, warmth, organiza-
tion, ambition, and scientific values. They were much more
likely than non-smokers to drink alcoholic beverages.

I The nonpsmokers were more likely to have mesomor-
phio physiques, and personality traits that were high in
sensory awareness, warmth, organization, ambition, and
scientific values, and low in sexuality and liberalism.
They were, as a group, less likely to drink alcoholic

beverages.

29

Comparigon of Results gith Other Studies

Differences in Physigue
In relation to physique, the findings that the

ectomorph group smoked significantly more than the meso-
morph group were contrary to those of Sheldon (1“). It

is recalled that he characterized ectomorphs as sensitive
to tobacco, and least likely of the three somatotypes to
engage in smoking. Sheldon would undoubtedly criticize

the clumsiness of the author's method of classifying the
somatotypes, and Justly so; nevertheless, the author veri-
fied his original findings by using the more objective
measure of height/cube root of weight ratio. Other attempts
to verify the original finding were also supportive.

Differegces in Persgnal Characteristicg
The findings relative to parental influences failed

to support Earp (3),who obtained a positive relationship
between smoking habits of father and son. The data, if
anything, suggested a negative relationship. Partial sup-
port for this suggestion of a negative relationship was
found in Hollingshead's study of American youth (7). ‘This
author noted that law and the mores denied students the
right to enjoy pleasures derived from smoking, drinking
and gambling. Yet, he felt, the mystery with which the
adults surrounded these areas of behavior acted as a stimu-
lus for the young people to experience the supposed thrill

of pleasures which their elders denied them.

30

The suggestion of McArthur, et__l. (9), of a posi-
tive relationship between smoking and "orality" received
little support from the data. Gum chewing, a possible oral
characteristic, was found to be unrelated to smoking. Drink-
ing, however, was found to be highly related positively to
smoking, which supported indirectly the McArthur, gt _l, (9)
finding that non-smokers were often non-drinkers. The data
failed to support any suggestion of a relationship between
smoking and health as measured by the number of visits to

the University Health Center.

Differences in Personality

With respect to personality differences between
smokers and non-smokers, the data generally supported the
McArthur, 3;,al. (9) findings that the non-smokers were more
upwardly mobile and pious, and approved of scientificzvalues.
In the present study, non-smokers were significantly more
ambitious (upwardly mobile), and more scientifically
oriented. They were also found to hold higher religious
values (piety) but not at a significant level. The data
did not support the McArthur,let‘gl. (9) findings that non-
smokers held low economic values, and were introverts.

Vallance (18) found smokers less positively suggest-
able than non-smokers, a finding which is consistent with
the somewhat greater self-confidence and dominance which
characterized smokers in the present study. Lawton and

Phillips (8) found smokers to possess more traits of

31
nervousness. However, there was no evidence consistent
with this finding in the present study: the smokers had
somewhat better emotional control and had no higher acti-
vity level than the non-smokers.

Finally, the data did not support Earp's conclusion
(3) that smokers were inferior scholastically to non-
smokers. In the present study, no relationship was found
between these two variables.

Implications of the Resultg
for Further Research

The overall goal of the study was to determine if
there are measurable differences in physique and personality
between cigarette smokers and non-smokers. The findings of
the study, viewed as a whole, strongly suggest that there
are such differences. What are the implications of such

findings?

Cguses of Smgging

If smokers, indeed, differ from non-smokers in re—
lation to physique, the possibility exists that these dif-
ferences might account, in part at least, for suscepti-
bility to the smoking habit itself. Here this true, a
relatively untouched area of research into the causes of
smoking might be developed. The findings of the study con-
cerning physique differences should be subjected to exten-
sive cross-validation, using more refined methods of meas-

urement. Such validation studies should not be restricted

32
to college samples, but should include samples more rep- ’
resentative of the population.

The implications discussed above are also pertinent
to the findings of the study relative to differences in
personality. If personality differences are, in fact, pres-
ent, they too are a potential cause of smoking, and should
be exploited in further research. Areas of consideration,
in addition to validation studies, might include a study
of the needs which are satisfied by cigarette smoking.
Specifically, what are these needs? Are they held in com—
mon by the smoking population, or do they vary in nature
from one person to another?

Smoking has been shown to be strongly related to
drinking, the latter commonly held to be a reaction to
frustration and stress. This suggests that smoking also

may be a reaction to frustration and stress.

mo 1 d C cer

The general question of the stress hypothesis is of
considerable importance, not only in relation to the causes
cf smoking, but also in relation to the cigarette smoking-
lung cancer hypothesis. Studies reviewed previously have
emphasized the possibility of stress as a causative agent
1n.eancer. The present study has shown personality dif-
ferences between smokers and non-smokers. If stress, or
more likely, inadequate adjustment of smokers to stress,

could be shown to be included among the differences, then

33
the hypothesis that stress is a causative factor in both
smoking and cancer would appear most plausible, and worthy
of extensive investigation. Host clearly of all, the re-
lationship between physique and smoking suggests the need
for a comparable study of the relationship between physique
and lung cancer. If non-smoking lung cancer victims were
found to be predominantly ectomorphic, then such findings
would strongly suggest that constitutional factors determine

both lung cancer and smoking.

SUMMARY

The purpose of this study was to determine if there
were differences in physique and personality between col-
lege male cigarette smokers and non-smokers. On the basis
of previous studies, four hypotheses were derived and tested.
These hypotheses predicted that cigarette smokers differ
from non-smokers with respect to l) physique, 2) certain
personal characteristics 3) personality traits, and 4) col-
lege grades. The subjects utilized in the study were male
undergraduate students at Michigan State University. A
total of #46 subjects were used.

Differences in physique were studied.by classifying
subjects into three groups of somatotypes, dividing each
somatotype into nonpsmoker and smoker sub-groups, and test-
ing for differences. frhe results indicated that the ecto-
morph group smoked significantly more than the mesomorph
group.

Data relative to personal characteristics were ob-
tained by questionnaire. Subjects were divided into three
groups: non-smokers, moderate smokers, and heavy smokers.
The relationship between these three groups and each of the
variables concerned was tested for significance. The re-
sults indicated a significant positive relationship between
smoking and drinking, and no significant relationship

35

between smoking and parental influence, gum chewing, and
visits to the University Health Center.

The general procedure employed to study differences
in personality was to obtain two groups of subjects, heavy
smokers and nonpsmokers, from which estimates of 22 person-
ality traits were obtained by use of the H.C. Smith Inven-
tory. Mean differences were tested for significance. Heavy
smokers differed significantly from non-smokers on seven of
the 22 traits. With reference to these seven traits, heavy
smokers scored high in sexuality and liberalism, and low in
sensory awareness, warmth, organization, ambition, and
scientific values. A new inventory, the SK Scale, was de-
rived which significantly discriminated between non-smokers
and heavy smokers.

Differences in grade point averages between a group
of smokers and non-smokers were tested for significance.
The results indicated no significant difference between
the two groups.

A comparison of the results with other studies was
made, and the implications of the results for further re-
search were discussed, with particular emphasis on the
causes of smoking, and the relationship of smoking to lung

cancer.

10.

11.

REFERENCES

Blumberg, E. M. Results of psychological testing of
cancer patients. In J. A. Gengerelli & F. J. Kirk-
ner (Ed.), The pgyphplpgical verigblep in human pep-
cer, a symposigm, Berkeley, Calif.: Univer. of Cal-
ifornia Press, 1954.

Banger causes shifted. New York T mes, Sept. 11, 1954,
19: .

Earp, J. R. The student who smokee. Yellow Springs,
Ohio: Antioch Press, 192 .

Haenszel, U., Shimkin, M. B., & Miller, H. P. pracco

gmokipg patterns in the 0,3, U.S. Dept. of Health,
Education, and Welfare, Public Health Service, Public

Health Monograph No. #5. Hashington, D.C.: U.S. Gov-
ernment Printing Office, 1956.

Hammond, E. C. & Hern, D. Smoking in relation to death
rates. Paper read at annual meeting of American Medi-
cal Association, New Ybrk, June, 1957.

Hershey, G. L. College grades in relation to inven-
tory measures of personality. Unpublished master's
thesis, Michigan State University, 1958.

Hailingshead, A. Elmtown's Youth. New York: Wiley,
19 9.

Lawton, M. a Phillips, 8. The relationship between
excess cigarette smoking and psychological tension.
Jr, Meg. $31., 1956, 232, N0. 1+. (Abstract)

McArthur, C., waldron, E., & Dickenson, J. The psy-

chology of smoking. J, gbporp soc, Psychol,, 1958,
56' 2 7-275.

Meerloo, J.A.M. Psychological implications of malig-
nant growth. Brit. Jr. Med. Psychol,, 1954, 27, 210-215.

Northrup, E. Science looks at smpkipg. New Ybrk:
Coward, McCann, Inc., 1957.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

3?

Russ, S. Smokipg and its effecpp, New York:
MacMillan, 1955.

Sheldon, W. H. (with the collaboration of S. S. Ste-

vens & W. B. Tucker). {The varieties 9: human phy-
ue: an introducti n to onstitution ch 0

New York: Harper, 19 O.

Sheldon, H. H. (with the collaboration of 8.3. Ste-

vens). The varieties of temperament: a psychology
pf constitutional differences, New York: Harper, 1942.

Sheldon W. H. (with the collaboration of C. w. Duper-
tuis & B. McDermott). Atlas of men: a gpide for soma-

totypipg the adult male at all ages. New York: ‘Har-
per, 195 . _

Smith, I. C. Psychometric checks on hypotheses derived
from Sheldon's work on physique and temperament.
J, Pers, 1949, 17, 310-320.

 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Marketing
Service. Annual re ort on tobacco statistics — l
Stagistical bulletin No. 222. washington D.C.: March,
195 .

Vallance, T. R. Suggestibility of smokers and non-
smokers. ngghpl, Reg., 1940, 4, 138-144.

Walker, Helen M. & Lev, J. Statigticgl Infereppe.
New Yerk: Holt, 1953.

APPENDICES

 

APPENDIX A

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

TABLE '1 3 9
INDEX OF 821621 ovma CUBE 2001 OF WEIGHT*
Height in inches
'EEEX ékr' 61" 62“ ‘65"“ 64“ 657"66” ”67“ 68" 69" 70" 71" 72" '75"“*fi@“‘"”
11:7 68 71 *75 78 82 86 “9I”‘12?"15¥“1IM?7108 115 I118 125 128 "
11¢; 69 75 77 80 81 88 92 97 101 106 110 115 120 125 150
11.5 71 71 78 82 86 90 91 99 105 108 115 118 122 128 155
11.1 75 76 80 ‘"81 88 92" 96 101? 105 110 115 120 125 150 156
11.5 71 78 82 86 90 91 99 155 108 115 118 125 128 155 159
11.2 76 80 85 88 92 96 101 105 110 115 120 125 150 156 111
11.1 77 81 85 89 91 98 105 107 115 117 122 128 155 158 115
11.0 79 85 87 91 95 100 101 110 115 120 125 150 156 112 117
1&9" ““81‘“85 {k} 95 98"?fifl§‘107““tfi?‘117* 122‘828“155 tum) 118 117'“
15.8 82 86 91 95 100 101 109 115 120 125 150 157 112 118 1‘;
159/ 81 88 95 97 102 107 112 117 125 128 155 159 116 151 157
15.6 86 90 91 99 101 110 111 120 125 150 157 112 118 155 161
15.5 88 92 97 102 106 111 117 122 128 155 159 116 151 158 165
1531' 90 91 1~- 101‘ 110 111 123 125 151 157 112 119 155”“162’7fifi1'
15.5 92 97 101 106 111 117 122 128 151 110 115 152 158 165 172
15.2 91 99 101 109 111 119 125 151 157 112 119 156 165 170 177
15.1 96 101 106 111 117 122 128 151 110 116 152 159 166 171 180
1551 97 105 109 111 119 125 151 157 111 119 156 165 170 178 181
12.9 101 106 '111“”116””12fi7“12§?‘12??”TIUT‘UEET‘IDE5“’U§§““156 171 181 189“‘
12.8 105 109 115 119. 125 151 159 111 151 157 161 171 178 185 195
1267 105 111 116 122 128 151 111 117 151 161 167 175 182 190 198
12.6 108 115 119 125 151 157 111 151 157 165 172 179 187 195 202
12.5 111 117 122 128 151 111 17 151 161 168 176 185 191 199 207__1
1231 115 119’ 125 151 157 111 *151 157 165 172 179‘”187 196 201 215
12.5 116 122 128 155 111 117 151 162 169 177 181 192 200 210 218
12.2 119 125 151 157 115 151 158 165 171 181 189 197 205 211 221
12.1 121 128‘ 151 111 118 ‘155 165 170 178 185 195 202 211 220 229
121) 125 151 158 115 152 159 166 171 182 190 198 207 216 226 255
11.6’ 128’ 155 111 119 156 165 170 178* 187 ‘195 '205 215 221 251 211
11.8 151 158 115 152 159 167 175 185 191 199 209 218 227 257 297
11.7 155 111 119 156 161 171 179 188 196 205 211 221 255 215 251
11.6 158 116 152 160 168 176 181 195 201 211 220 229 258 250 260
1&35 111 119 157 165 172 180 189 198 207 216 226 256 215 256 267
llrfl 116 155 ‘161 168 ‘178 185 *191 205 212' 221 251 212 252 265 275
11.5 150 158 165 171 181 190 199 209 218 228 257 218 258 270 280
11.2 151 162 170 178 187 195 201 211 225 251 211 255 266 277 289
HKHE: Follow down the proper height column to the proper weight. The correct

index is then found in the left hand column.

TMHEII
ESEQEPtYPGS corresponding_to_height~weight index*

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

INDEX 8019101125 INDEX SOMATOTYPE
$177” 127 .. 112:L-555---555
11.6 127 12.8 552--_522
14.5 127 12.7 552«—-552
11.5 217 12.6 561—-—615
14.3 126 12.5 171---625
14.2 216 12.1 512———561
14~1 226 12.5 632---271
14.0 256 12.2 652—-—271
13-9 225 12.1 161—--651
13-8 525 12.0 651--—551
19.7 555 11.9 651
13-6 555 11.8 721
13.5 551—-—211--.151 11.7 721
15.1 551——-251-—-121 11.6 721
15-3 511-——151 11.5 721
15.2 515~~-111--—155 11.1 751

1§ 1 115~—~551---521 11.5 711
19.3 555—--551 711

 

 

 

 

  
    

11.2

NOTE: Eick somatotype Opposite index correSponding t
Judged to be dominant.

o the component

f".V‘ . ~
,.
‘3 7..
4
' n
.. I
c -.
o

‘

‘ . f
t b '
.' "'
3 ’- a

a “

' n n.
...1_1

.

s. ‘.
J' . ~
I 1': '
L’ .. .
' v

.

' nu.

 

 

 

    

 

 

 

 

. .
0 .~
'1
. . .
- A
y .
' a
.
, -
u
V
, x 1
k
. n
|
. , ..
U
. r:
- ..
~
‘ I
‘ u
. ‘ A. ~ '.
o . :
. u . ‘
' ' ' V . . . t
. .
. ‘I‘ 1.." C » a. ' .‘ 2 . I. .u i a at .[L‘ w . I . v.0
t . ' . . ’
. . .
v
,' 4 - . v c'
'5 . . H ' 7 .
I: ~ -
. | I .
I ' ‘I'. . ' ‘ ' .
. . , , . '
a ( . .
. '. . ‘ - . ' ' ' J.
, . .-_.. 1 . - l
. ' . . . , . ._ ‘ . ' j I ' .' ‘ . . .
' ‘ . - . . '3. . - . . ‘3 . - .u 3 . - .‘ y n . ‘ . - .
,_ . _. . . , . .... . . ... . . . -, , . a. .- . , ' . t o. “ C‘ ‘ - -
.IQ'. - "t'f - 4-— 1". 9.”. ’u‘ 4.r ct "‘3‘ f "r" - 1 v ‘1 ft . ~as d U - 0 ' H ‘ ' 7' ~ “V. H ’0‘
. . . A . - .
". . I" . ' j 1 . n ’ . o 1 J .
l... . {Y- - D.- : I.;‘I '. '0 a I .‘ f a: .2 I . . ‘ .- . .‘ l. u
. . no - . v _
»-. '.-. -- ;-- --. v.-. ‘9 - y. . .- ,. v
_ _' .. _ _ . ..._ . — . u ; a . ' i'i ’. °
' C n ' . u I h , .
e"‘: .1 1 .- 1‘ - ~ . -. . .. . .
'-’ G u. 0 r0. .- d ’ .' n n - « d ’ ' ‘- A Q l- ‘« . ‘ Q
. .. , . , . o . . : , . '1 _ .. . . _ . . .
. . | . ~. . —, - ~ I . , . I ‘ -
. . '- .o. b -. ’. ~ . . .. . ‘, . .. . ~ A. .u - .. . '. ' .'
' I ' ‘M ‘ n '. 3‘ II. . t " l ’ '5 r , . .I. I l. : _‘ I . . a” -' '. " 5.
P J . I ., . n o . 3 ~ ' I. . . . - ‘ . ,. ’ n .- ‘» . :. .' . . |l ‘ ‘.
u. ,... - I_,. . .. - «vans. «7w..- _.. n . - . ‘u no .- .- « r- ”“1“" {I O- -‘:\- .-~ r - --vr‘.‘f‘:-"" “flay-:3- ,c" “-"‘.T[“ .. ,., W -‘ ',v~.- - ‘ "r ‘
. 1 . .‘ , '. [,2 . . . ..' . . . 1 1' . 3 : I
. . . . . . . . ,. . L .- x 5. - . 1 .. 1. . Q I
.
| ‘<. . _ I I. .. ~ ' u- . - . - , .1. .I ‘ -. i .
- . . . l' n , ' .
. . , . 3 I . . -. ' . ‘ - ..: .- - . - ' -' _ 4 ’ - O
a
. ‘ ,v . " r . - - ~ . > ‘ .
‘ ,. ‘ - , . ' _.c- l ' .l ‘ i .l . v ’
. . ‘1 . -. ‘ .‘l ' . ‘ , .. ._ ‘ g
. - ‘ . 1 ., . v . X 7‘ .. -- f . ' o f. V .‘O = , -
. . ‘ . . . _ . .. 1 .-- - a . - , . .. - . . - -
. . - . I J‘ ~, - . ‘ " I. ‘ - . 1 - a. ’ ' ‘U‘ o .1 . .
. . . . .- .\ - . - l
. t _ . ‘ . . V ._ 1 a 3 _ '. ' .; . . ' . -
. . l a. ' . . DU - \I .. ‘ ' . . ‘ U _ ‘- I,’ ' .
‘1' " w~¢znfic n_.."‘-,..-.. .n p‘-.-. -. - o 0., '0 “we, .0 ’ .n. ~l“ .,, ‘ .- wr‘ .
‘ .‘ i '.‘ c ' . - . r41_ ‘ ,‘ I, .
. ' ' ' ' . . a u . ' ' .
‘ . o . ‘. . ' ' ' ' ' 0 ' . ' . '
' I . g ‘ ‘ ' I'fl'n r
' . o .. s. . u ' ' ' l - n -‘ . "
.l n. . ' . ._ ‘ . ‘ . .' . ~ ' . _ . _ .
.' . I ., ,. - v . , o ' . . 3 ' , o . . ,, _ \ . ,
l ' . " " _ . u I g . ~. " . ’g ‘ "
. '5 ‘ \ " ‘ .‘ , _ . .. . . t , n ‘ . - 4 .
I ‘1 g . ‘ ." ,. ‘ . ,c ‘ Q ,.
_‘.n ‘ . . I .- Tu- . ‘ . , o u ' f‘ '-. _ .- .v ,
,. , .’ ' - . ‘ . , . ' - ' ’ . I .
I . - . u s x ' 2 _. .- a O n
- --. ; -"‘ - {v v- . v- n 'q. an .- .0. .' - c-u . ,- . -~ «4' . ."‘ . g Q. 1 ' 0 -~ '— - .- 'v 9.. fl - . - ,_.. - .
.1 ' .. ' . a
. . . _ . . . I . ,
' - ' .. t . ,. - . g . ' . 1 r - o _
, . _ a
'I - '. I I
‘ . ;.I'.I ' .: ‘ ' .
I u .k . A. l .‘ g u ' . ' '
’ V
. . . \ . ' ‘ ' : .‘, ‘- c ’
. .. _\ ' . ' '1 . v k ._ g .
‘ u ‘. > ’ ' ‘n - , . I
1 1 . ' . . ‘
. . .
K' . ', ' . , c J , .
’ , ' . . .
I I
' \
I O . A I
I
Mfl
._——+

 

APPENDIX B 40

SK 3““ a. c. Smith
2129251939.: December. 1953

There are no right or wrong answers to the following statements.
Indicate your answers on the separate sheet. If you think the state~
ment is ”true” or more true than false as far as you are concerned,
mark '1' on the separate answer sheet. If you think the statement
is "false" or more false than true as far as you are concerned, mark
"2" on the separate answer sheet. Please try to answer all questicns.

l. I avoid making people angry at considerable sacrifice of my own
interests.

2. I sometimes have had dreams that I refused to talk about.
3. I very rarely tell Jokes in.which sex plays a major part.
b. I never engaged in petting during high school.

5. I am almost never embarrassed.

6. Cremation is as good a method for burial as any.

7. The Continental attitude towards mistresses is more sensible
than ours.

8. It is bad for a married man to take another man's wife to the
movies under any circumstances.

9. I am a nervous person.
10. I like to associate with athletic men.
11. I go my own way somewhat regardless of the opinions of others.
12. I believe that a "thing of beauty is a Joy forever."
13. I seldom become sexually excited.
1h. I always avoid getting into serious arguments.
15. I would like buying merchandise for a store.
16.4 I sometimes tell people frankly what I think of them.
1?. I like to read scientific articles in popular magazines.
18. I can't say that I have ever been very amazed at anything.

19. If I were able, I would be interested in.making a chemical
analysis of a new toothpaste.

20. I have fre uently refused to engage in petting and kissing when
a member 0 the opposite seX‘wanted to.

21. I would enjoy conducting research on the causes of earthquakes.

22. I am very quick in all of my actions.

23. I have sometimes crossed the street to avoid meeting unpleasant
acquaintances.

2#. I give sometimes used threats of force to accomplish desirable
go s.

25. Failures tend to have a rather depressive effect on.me.

26. The Church has sometimes encouraged intolerance.

27. ggl%gion should be mainly a matter of orientation to life on
0
28. No purpose could exist in the world without the idea of God.

-1-

29.

30.
31.
32.
33.

3a,
35.
36.
37.
38.

39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
1&5.
46.

#7.

#8.
49.
50.
51.

52.
53.
5“.

55.

56.
5?.

58.
59-

60.
61.

62.

H1

talk with my friends about my personal reactions to people
good deal.

enjoy much more than I fear a hazardous undertaking.
sometimes worry over extremely humiliating experiences.
like to make a very careful plan before starting to do anything.

sometimes lack self-confidence when I have to compete against
people who are at least as good as I am.

I am rather modest about sexual matters.
I am extremely systematic in caring for my personal property.
When I disagree with people, I tell them so.

I sometimes say things that I regret later.

Radical agitators should be allowed to speak publicly in certain
parks and streets.

Personal criticism generally bothers me a little.

I think I understand myself extremely well.

Most of my spare money is used for pleasure.

My relations with other people are simple‘and uncomplicated.
I am a rather objective and matter-of-fact person.

I believe that the first goal of work is to make money.

I would enjoy being an athletic director.

I would very much enjoy the kind of work that a scientific re-
search worker does.

I thinkqthe Intiic schools should give more thought to promoting
the Study an performance of drama.

I like to perform lahoratory experiments.
I talk a good deal about my personal experiences and my own ideas.
I generally prefer to keep my opinions and feelings to myself..

It is occasionally difficult for me to keep my mind on one thing
for a long time.

I keep my workplace extremely neat and very orderly.
I can deal much better with actual situations than with ideas.

I feel that nothing in life is a substitute for the solving of
great social prOblems.

I think that obtaining sexual satisfaction is not a very imporu
tant thing in my life.

Trial by Jury always will be the best way of securing Justice.

In my first ears of high school, I went out frequently with
members of t e opposite sex.

I would rather see a musical comedy than a documentary film.

I have some difficulty in concentrating my thoughts on one thing
for long.

I feel much but speak little.

I would rather go out with attractive persons of the opposite
sex than do almost anything else.

I act on the princi le that a man's first duty is to adjust him-
self complete y to is immediate environment.

HHHHmH

- 2 a

63.
6h.

65.
66.
67.

68.
69.
70.
71.
72.

73.
71+.
75.

76.

#2

I would rather listen to a story than tell one.

I nerall criticize m ac uaintances when I disa rove of
thglr behafiior. y q pp

I enjoy 'social problem movies.‘

I enjoy entertaining others.

I like to spend a great deal of time reviewing in my mind the
impressions that things have made on me.

I like abstracttpainting.

I enjoy people who are blunt in their speech.
My desires are occasionally at war with one another.

I have occasional headaches.

If a student in class discussion makes a statement that I think
is erroneous, I frequently question it.

I would enjoy being a hotel keeper or manager.

I am a fairly impulsive person.
I enjoy talking at social gatherings more than listening.

Ideameindimuxgtheendent1u>whhn1you1umychmMUmggum.

(1) never chew um

(2) less than 1,14 package per day

(3) I’ll package to 1/2 package per day
(4) 1/2 to 1 package per day

(5} more than 1 package per day

Please indicate the number of cigarettes you smoke per day.

(1% never smoke cigarettes

(2 1,”+ pack or less per day

(3) more than 1,04 pack, less than 1 pack per day
(’4) 1 pack to 2 packs per day

(5) more than 2 packs per day

Please indicate the number of times you have visited Olin Memorial Health
Center during the present quarter.

(1) no visits

(2) one visit

(3) two visits

(4) three visits

(5) four or more visits

Please indicate the extent to which you use alcoholic beverages.

(1) never drink

‘(2) drink rarely and lightly

(3) drink frequently but lightly

(1‘) drink frequent and sometimes heavily
(5) drink frequently and heavily

-33-

80. Please describe your general physique.

(1) I am more fat than muscular.

(2) My fat and muscle are about equal.
(3) I am more muscular than fat.

(4) I am about as muscular as thin.
(5) Thin

81. Concerning the cigarette smoking habits of my parents.

(1) Neither parent smokes cigarettes.
(2) Only my father smokes

(3) Only aw mother smokes

(’4) Both parents smoke cigarettes

82. If you are a cigarette smoker. please indicate which type of cigarette
you smoke. Non—mkers please leave blank.

(1) Non-filtered regular

(2) Non-filtered king-size
(3) Filtered.

’43

4“

APPENDIX C

SUMMARY OFTPHE H.C.S. INVENTORY

"W m

1. Activity
Inactive--Active

2. Sensory Awareness
Unaware—-Aware

3. Sexuality
Low--High

h. Emotionality
Unemotional--
Emotional

5. Optimism
Optimism--
Pessimism

6. Expressiveness
Inhibited--
Expressive

7. Thinking
Introverted--
Extroverted

8. Interests
Narrow--Broad

9. Self-Confidence
Low-~High

An attempt to determine the
general activity level of
the individual.

The degree to which an indi-
vidual is aware of his sur-
rounds via his sense organs.

Interest in members of the
opposite sex and activities
pertaining thereto.

The degree to which an indi-
vidual becomes emotionally
involved in situations and
with others.

The general pattern of re-
sponses to situations; is it
pessimistic or optimistic?

The relative amount of free-
dom or restraint the indivi-
dual displays in expressing
emotion.

The degree to which an.indi-
vidual is inward or outward
oriented in his perception
of the environment.

An attempt to measure an in.
dividual‘s self extension
through determining the num-
ber of likes in such areas as
occupations, school subjects,
amusements, activities, and
types of people.

How the individual evaluates

his own worth, adequacy, and
competence.

10.

11.

12.

13.

1h.

15.

16.

17.

Self-Insight
Low-~High

Economic Values
Low--High

Artistic Values
Low--High

Scientific Values
Low--High

Religious Values
Low--High

Liberalism
Conservative--
Liberal

Ambition
Unambitious-—
Ambitious

Organization
Unorganized--
Organized

45

A measure scored on the basis
of total number of unpleasant
traits, which a person says
describes him, plus total
number of pleasant traits
which he says does not de-
scribe him.

Whether the individual is
primarily interested in what
is useful; preoccupied with
affairs of the business world.

Measure of interest in form
and harmony, beauty, and
aesthetic activities.

Relative degree of interest
in scientific endeavors and
scientific method.

Measure of the intensity and
confidence of the indi vidual's
belief in God, in the super-
natural, and in divine inter-
vention.

Degree of liberalism and con-
servatism the individual dis-
plays in relation to a number
of issues.

Whether the individual desires
to do things as rapidly and
as well as possible; whether
he makes intense, prolonged,
and repeated efforts to ac-
complish difficult things;

and whether he enjoys compe-
titicn.

Attempts to measure some as-
pects of Cattell's "Positive
vs. Immature Dependent Char—
acter," e.g. Consistently
ordered vs. Relaxed; Cons
scientious vs. Undependable,
etc.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

Emotional Control
Uncontrolled--
Controlled

Gregariousness
Unsociable--
Sociable

warmth
Cold-Harm

Dominance
Submissive--
Dominant

Conformity
Nonconformity--
Conformity

#6

What are the individual's
reactions to emotional emer-
gencies and to frustrating
situations.

Measures need for affiliation.
Not to be confused with ”soc-
iability" which implies soc-
ial skill, social values, inn
terests in intimate friend-
ships, etc.

The degree to which an indi-
vidual likes, accepts, approves
feels close to, and wants to
help others.

Measures degree of dominance
through items related to dom-
inance feelings, behavior,
and leadership.

Attempts to differentiate
conformists from non-conform-
ists.

APPENDIX D

 

Nam HORN}9 FOR THE H.C.S. PERSONALITY MENTOR! n.0, Smith
(last) (first) epru 1959
Date

 

PERSONALITY PROFILE
(Norms based on 100 Midwestern College Students)

 

 

 

 

 

PERCENTILE

mm 9 19 29 39 1&9 69 79 89 99 190

1. AOTIVITI 12 19 19 1'; 29 23, 2; 21; 7
Inactive—Active

2. smsomr AWAIENESS 19 1; 19 19 29 219 29 219» 8
Unaware-«aware

3. SEXUALITY 9 1:9: 119» 15 17 19 29 21 8
Low—high

tr. MOTIONALIT!‘ 9 11 19 19 1? 2:} 2'; O
Unemotional-emotional

5. OPTIMISM 11 19 1§ 17 29 29 21; 25 9
Pessimism' timism'

6. mmssm-Orfs 19 Is 15 1'; 29 229 2’9 29 9
Inhibited~€flxpressive

7. THINKING 89 19 129 19 169 1'; 19 29 7
Introverted—extrovsrted 99

8. INTERESTS 19 29 29 29 3} 3} 39 9 1
Narrow-{Broad 1,.

9. SHE—CONFIDENCE z 9 19 139. 19 17 239. 2? '
Low—«high

10. SEE-INSIGHT 15 19 19 1; 9 19 19 29
Low—high I

11. ECONOMIC mums 11 19 119 14 16 19 29 21 22
Low—411g;

12. ARTISTIC vmms ) 12 19 19 21 29
Lon-high

13. SCIENTIFIC VALUES 5 3 5 9 9 19 119 1'; 21
Low—~high

11+. RELIGIOUS VeLUEs 5 9 119 it; 19 239 219 29
Low~high

15. LIBEReLISM t 11 1:; 11.9 19 19 29 22; 25
Cons srvative—-Liberal

16. AMBITION '97 19 12 1:; 15 19 1'; 13
Unambitious~Ambitious .

17. ORGANIZATION q 9 139 15 19 19 21
Unorganiz sd~0rganizcd

18. mOTIONAI. CONTROL *1 g 11 119 19 19 21 2t;
Uncontrolled-controlled

19. (RIEGARI OUSHESS 9 1.9 192 119 19 29 2; 2i;
Unsociable-Sociable

20. WABMTR 9 11 1} 119 1'; 1Q 29 2;
Cold-Warm

21. DOMINANGE 1:9 19 19 19 29 21 2:; 219 3;.“
Submissive—~Dominant i __

22. CONFORMITY 9 12 13 It; 19 1'; 19 21 9
Nonconformithonformity r _9

 

 

OTHER

 

APPENDIX.B
48

SK Scale, Revised
H.C. Smith

21mm: Feb.. 1959
There are no zlght or wrong answers to the following statements.

Indicate your answers on the separate sheet. If you think the state~

ment is "true“ or more true than false as far as you are concerned,

mark ”1" on the answer sheet. If you think the statement is "false"

or more false than true as far as you are concerned, mark "2“ on

the answer sheet. Please try to answer all questions.

I. I would rather see a musical comedy than a documentary film.
2. I can't say that I have ever been very amazed at anything.
3. I think I understand myself extremely well.

4. No purpose could exist in the world without the idea of God.

5. I have some difficulty in concentrating my thoughts on one
thing for long.

6. I talk a good deal about my personal experiences and my own
ideas.

7. Personal criticism generally bothers me a little.

8. I keep my work-place extremely neat and very orderly.
9. When I disagree with people, I tell them so.

10. I am rather modest about sexual matters.

11. I am a fairly impulsive person.

12. My desires are occasionally at war with one another.

13. i like to make a very careful plan before starting to do any-
hing.

1h. I always avoid getting into serious arguments.

15. I never engaged in petting during high school.

16. I am extremely systematic in caring for my personal property.
9 17. Nest of my spare money is used for pleasure.

18. Radical agitators should be allowed to speak publicly in
certain parks and streets.

19. I avoid making people angry at considerable sacrifice-cf my
own interests.

20. I generally criticize my acquaintances when I disapprove of
their behavior.

21. I talk with my friends about my personal reactions to people
a good deal.

22.
23.
2h.

25.
26.
27.
28.
29.

30.
31.
32.
33.
3h.

35.
36.

37.

38.

39.

-2- “9
I believe that the first goal of work is to make money.
I am a nervous person.

The Continental attitude towards mistresses is more sensible
than ours.

I very rarely tell Jokes in which sex plays a major part.

I like to read scientific articles in popular magazines.

The Church has sometimes encouraged intolerance.

I generally prefer to keep my opinions and feelings to myself.

I feel that nothing in.life is a substitute for the solving
of great social problems.

I have occasional headaches.

Cremation is as good a method for burial as any.

I am very quick in all my actions.

I would like buying merchandise for a store.

I believe that "a thing of beauty is a Joyforever'.

I would enjoy being an athletic director.

my relations with other peeple are simple and uncomplicated.

Please indicate the extent to which you use chewing gum.
1) never chew gum
2) less than & package a day
2 package to i package per day
to 1 package per day.
5) more than 1 package per day

Please indicate the number of cigarettes you smoke per day.

1) never smoke cigarettes

2 i pack or less per day
more than & pack, less than 1 pack per day
1 pack to 2 packs per day

5) more than 2 packs per day

Please indicate the number of times you have visited Olin
Memorial Health Center during the present quarter.

1) no visits
2) one visit
a; two visits
‘ three Visits
5) four or more visits

#0.

#1.

#2.

43.

50
-3“
Please indicate the extent to which you use alcoholic beverages.

1 never drink
{2; drink rarely and lightly
(a 9 drink frequently but lightly
) drink frequently and sometimes heavily
(5) dbink frequently and heavily

Please describe your general physique.

l I am more fat than muscular

2 my fat and muscle are about equal
3) I am more muscular than fat

#) I am about as muscular as thin

5) Thin

Concerning the cigarette smoking habits of my parents:

(1) Neither parent smokes cigarettes
2) Only my father smokes

3) only my mother smokes

h) Both parents smoke cigarettes

If you are a cigarette smoker please indicate which type of
cigarette you smoke. Non-smo are please leave blank.

1) Non-filtered regular
2; Non-filtered king-size
3 Filtered

If you are a cigarette smoker, please indicate'gn the, hack of,
you: ensue; under what circumstance you most desire a
cigarette. Nonpsmokers please leave blank.

Please ensure that you have given, on the top of your answer sheet,
the following:

age

sex

marital status
height in inches
weight

 

 

999m?
B .31 19821;

I‘m-SW4
In *U h}

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3.22;"

 

"‘79111191111199In“