m"

 

 

LIBRARY
Michigan State

University

 

 

 

This is to certify that the

dissertation entitled

FOUR GOPING STYLES AND INTERPERSONAL BEHAVIOR
presented by

ARTHUR H. MYERS

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

ram. degreein CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGY

 

 

 

Date 5, fif/(7

MS U is an Wu Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 0-12771

“—— W5 h __.
v— v— ‘M-H-K _.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1V1ESI.J BEIURNING MATERIALS:
Place in book drop to
LJBRAjJEs remove this checkout from
”- your record. FINES will
be charged if book is

 

returned after the date
stamped below.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

_-——

 

JuNiz {1199?

an. o a I”

;'t ~ 9 1999

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

FOUR COPING STYLES AND INTERPERSONAL BEHAVIOR

By

Arthur H. Myers

A DISSERTATION

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

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Psychology

1987

ABSTRACT

FOUR COPING STYLES AND INTERPERSONAL BEHAVIOR

BY

Arthur u. Myers

Attempting to extend prior evidence that two widely-used
personality measures interactively relate to interpersonal behavior, the
Marlowe-Browne Scale (M03) and Bendig’s short form of Taylor’s Manifest
Anxiety Scale (B-MAS) were administered to 78 undergraduates in 16
small, mixed sex groups that each convened for about 50 hours during a
ten-week period. within-group interpersonal behaviors were rated on
different occasions by all group peers and self on two instruments.

Splitting participants by the median M08 and B-MAS scores formed four

I'coping style' groups: Low-Anxiggg (low MCS, low B-MAS), Reprgsgggg
(high MCS, low B-MAS), High-Anxious (low MCS, high B-MAS), and

nggngive High-Anxious (high MCS, high B-MAS).

The central hypothesis was that across a diverse set of
interpersonal behaviors peers would rate Repressors the least effective
and Low-Anxious the most effective. Employing a multiple correlation
method, significant interactions of the M08 and B-MAS with the
interpersonal measures were required to support the hypothesis, and
relatively few were found. The five (of 15) peer-rated behaviors that
did interact significantly generally yielded outcomes inconsistent with
the main hypothesis. Peers did not rate the Repressors as least
interpersonally effective nor the Low-Anxious as most effective.

ii

Unexpectedly, Repressors were rated marginally most effective on certain

variables.

Surprisingly, peers rated the Dgfensivg High-Anxiggg as highest on
anxiety and hostility, but lowest for insight, liking, and acceptance of
others. Leaders of similar groups should be advised of the special
interpersonal difficulties likely to be experienced by group members

high on both anxiety and defensiveness if this finding is confirmed.

Consistent with a secondary hypothesis, Repressors used the
narrowest range for rating the interpersonal behavior of self and
others. This may reflect both their desire to be favorably viewed by
others and related efforts to avoid interpersonal conflict. MCS scores
consistently correlated negatively (significantly in 2 of 4 cases) with
range. Considering other pertinent evidence (Hurley, 1986), this

finding suggests that both rater’s range and M08 tap defensiveness.

The unexpected outcomes seem partially attributable to a
combination of sample characteristics and the comparatively broad

criteria employed for constituting the present coping groups.

iii

ACKNOULEDGEMENTS

I would like to thank those individuals who have helped me as

I worked toward the completion of this dissertation.

I would especially like to thank Dr. John Hurley, my
chairperson, for his patience, support, and careful attention to my
work. His friendship and understanding during these past two

difficult years have been most important and meaningful to me.

Dr. Robert Caldwell gave generously of his time and provided
very valuable methodological suggestions. Drs. Ralph Levine, Norm
Abeles, Gary Stollak, and Don Hamachek are appreciated for their

constructive participation over the course of this project.

I am grateful to my friends David Raulet, Tony Cox, Abby
Golomb, Ues Novak, and Fred Rogosch for helping me maintain my

spirits during the dark times.

Above all, I am grateful to Cindy for her patience,
encouragement, and love. She helped me sustain a conviction that

there would be an end to all this.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
METHOD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Participants .
Groups . . . .

Measures . . .
Procedure . . .

HYPOTHESES I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
"ETHOD 0F MLYSI S I I I I I I I I I I I I
RESULTS I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

Preliminary Analyses of Measures . . .
Results of Hypotheses . . . . . . . . .

DISCUSSIm I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

Psychometric Considerations . . . . . .
Marlowe-Crowne Scale (MCS) . . . .

Bendig Manifest Anxiety Scale (B-MAS

Major Findings . . . . . . .
Coping Sroup Findings
SIRS Anxiety . . . . . .
SIRS Hostility . . . . . . . . .
Main Effects for MCS Defensiveness
MCS and Raters Range . . . . . . .
B-MAS and Interpersonal Measures .

SMRY I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
APPENDICES

A. Course Description . . . . . . . .

B. Marlowe-Crowne Scale and the Bendig Manifest

AnXIQty sca‘e I I I I I I I I I I

C. Group Interpersonal Ratings Scales (SIRS)

D. MCS and B-MAS Means/and Standard Deviations, and

Sex Composition of the Four Coping Groups . . . .

Page

vii

21
21
21
22
27
29
32
34

34
44

57

57
57
58

58
60
61
64
67
72
74

77

81

82

e4

87

LIST OF

Correlations Between SIRS Variables
Correlations Between HIRS Variables

Raw Data Table

REFERENCES

vi

BB

89

9O

94

Table
1 Means, Standard Deviations, and Ranges for MCS and B-MAS .
2 ARS and ARO Peer and Self-Ratings, Mean, Standard
Deviation, and Range . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3 ARS and ARO Discrepancies, Means, Standard Deviations,
and Ranges I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
4 ARS and ARO Rater’s Range, Means, Standard Deviations,
and RIHQIS I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
5 Group Interpersonal Rating Scales (SIRS), Coefficient
Alpha, Mean, Standard Deviation, and Range . . . . . . .
6 Peer Minus Self-Rating Discrepancy Scores for SIRS, Mean,
Standard Deviation, and Range . . . . . . . . . . . . .
7 Pearson Product Moment Correlations of Marlowe-Crowne
Scale (MCS) and the Bendig Manifest Anxiety Scale (B-MAS)
with HIRS Dependent Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
8 Pearson Product Moment Correlations of Marlowe-Crowne
Scale (MCS) and the Bendig Manifest Anxiety Scale (B-MAS)
with SIRS Dependent Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
9 Multiple Correlation Analysis of Additive and Interactive
Effects of the MCS and B-MAS on Selected HIRS and SIRS
U‘riab'.’ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
10 Coping Group Cell Means and Ranks for Dependent Variables
With Significant MCS X B-MAS Interactions . . . . . . . .
D-l MCS and B-MAS Means and Standard Deviation, and Sex
Composition of the Four Coping Groups . . . . . . . . .
E-l Correlations Between SIRS Variables: Self-Ratings and
Peer-Ratings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
F-I Correlations Between HIRS Variables . . . . . . . . . . .

LIST OF TABLES

vii

34

37

38

39

41

42

45

46

47

48

89

9O

INTRODUCTION

This study will examine the extent to which a personality
questionnaire method of measuring four different styles of coping
with or defending against anxiety will predict the interpersonal
behavior of small-group members, as viewed from the vantage point of
self and peers. Particular attention will be paid to the specific
set of interpersonal behaviors expected to be differentially
associated with the four styles. Of additional interest are
discrepancies between perceptions of self versus others expected to

be associated with the four different styles.

'Anxiety' and 'defense' are concepts with a long tradition in
psychology’s attempts to understand both normal personality
development and psychopathology. Their dynamic interaction has been
portrayed by some theorists as the core around which the
individuals’ character evolves. As 'character'I is essentially
expressed by stable differences in individuals’ patterns of
interpersonal behavior, this study will, in general terms,
investigate whether particular styles of defense find expression in
observed interpersonal behavior. what follows is a brief overview
of how some of the more important theorists have conceptualized the

nature and interplay of defense and anxiety.

Freud published his 'final' theory of anxiety in 1925.
Previously he had regarded anxiety as I) a product of the build-up

and nonrelease of instinctual energy (libido), or 2) a physical

'transformation' of libido, that is, an expression of a drive that
has been pushed out of consciousness. The final theory posited
anxiety as a 'signal' of the return of the repressed, a signal that
serves under ideal circumstances to activate defenses. Defenses
are thus directed toward the alleviation of anxiety related to
unconsciously experienced threat. Freud’s formulation of the
functions and origins of anxiety and defense served to clarify the
foundation on which the symptoms of the psychoneuroses develop.
Although he elaborated a theory of normal development and explored
how psychosexual fixation and sublimation can leave their mark on
adult character, he did not concern himself with character or
personality formation per se. Freud’s primary interest was with
ego’s management of the dangers posed by instinctual drives and how

symptomatology results when the ego is unsuccessful.

wilhelm Reich was the first to systematically present
a theory relating Freud’s ideas regarding instinct, conflict, and
defense to the formation of character. He posited that defenses
against specific libidinal drives (oral, anal, phallic) can become
generalized and rigidified 'transformed into chronic attitudes, into
chronic automatic modes of reaction' (see Shapiro, 1964, p. 7).
while individual defense mechanisms serve to screen unitary
conflictual drive impulses from awareness, the more global character
defense or 'character armor' develops to ensure that ego remains
buffered from interpersonal relationships and other environmental
stimuli that could activate the potentially disruptive chain of
impulse, anxiety, and defense and/or symptom. To illustrate, a

pervasively passive manner of interacting with others may serve to

insure that hostility from both outside and within is not
consciously experienced (Reich, 1933, p. 96). Reich conceived of
the basic infantile conflict as representing both the germinal core
and the life-long rasion d’etre of character defense. Thus the
passive individual, when fully pyschoanalyzed, might be found to be
defending against patricidal rage. Of immediate relevance here is
the close association posited between the genetic conflict, the

defensive function of the ego, and the character of the individual.

At this early point in psychoanalytic thought, the 'ego' had
essentially been explicated only in terms of the defensive function
it served within the psyche. Thus, the terms 'ego', 'character',
and 'defense' shared a good deal more common meaning than is the

case today among contemporary analytic theorists.

Heinz Hartman and other ego psychologists, such as Anna Freud,
expanded on Freud’s understanding of the intrapsychic economics of
instincts, anxiety, and defense to elaborate an 'adaptive'
perspective in which the person is seen as involved in a
transforming interaction with the external world. From this
interaction the individual develops stable modes (based on 'ego
functions' both genetically and socially determined) of navigating
the environment and meeting instinctual needs. Thus, Hartman
elaborated from Freud’s conflict-based view of psychic structure and
development, to a broader framework, in which both pathological and
normal 'character structure' might be understood (Hartman, 1958).
Hartman was primarily interested in demonstrating that a) there are

functions of the ego (e.g., memory, perception, intellect) that have

their origins outside of the clash of conflict, and b) that the
social environment, in addition to infantile drive derivatives and
conflicts, has a significant and continuing impact on the form and
functioning of the ego. As Shapiro (1964) noted, Hartman and the
other ego psychologists were not particularly interested, as Reich
had been, with the question of 'character types' or modes of
interpersonal relating per se, but they did provide a more
thorough-going theoretical ground from which to articulate how such

stable patterns could evolve and be maintained.

Thus far in this brief overview a general shift may be
observed from an essentially intrapsychic, id impulse based
perspective on the linkages between anxiety, defense and
character/personality to a more contextually based interpersonal
view. Sullivan’s conceptualization of the process represented a
continuation of this trend. For Sullivan, personality dynamics
were seen as revolving around an unabating motive to maintain
self-esteem and avoid the anxiety which can emerge in any
interpersonal situation. He defined the 'self' as a I'system within
the personality, built up from innumerable experiences from early
life, the central notion of which is that we satisfy the people that
matter to us and therefore satisfy ourselves, and are spared the
experience of anxiety' (Sullivan, 1964, p. 218). From infancy and
throughout adulthood, anxiety may arise when we experience
disapproval or rejection from others who are significant to us. As
Sullivan suggests above, feelings of rejection can also emerge when

memories derived from internalized representations or

'personifications' of self and significant others are activated in

present interpersonal situations.

Defenses, or 'security operations' as Sullivan more typically
called them, are all those maneuvers the 'self-system' uses to
protect itself from experiencing anxiety. The greater the anxiety,
the greater the potential threat to the person’s security or
self-esteem. Self-esteem is maintained, and anxiety averted, when
we are able to hold positive conceptions of ourselves and perceive
that these conceptions are shared by others. While we tend to
behave in ways congruent with our positive self-image, security
operations, such as selective inattention, work to insure that
threatening incongruity does not enter conscious awareness. while
acknowledging that no one functions without security operations and
the distortions of social reality they entail, Sullivan stated that
'mental health is achieved to the extent that one becomes aware of

one’s interpersonal relations. . .' (Sullivan, 1940, p. 20?).

Unlike Reich, Sullivan was not inclined to speak of a set of
personality typologies or traits. For Sullivan, 'Personality was
not the 533;; of behavior, but more the giiggt of social factors“
(Rychlak, 1981, p. 352). Like Freud, Hartman, Anna Freud and Reich,
however, Sullivan placed 'anxiety' and 'defense' in positions of
central importance to his theory of both normal and pathological

personality development and current functioning.

while the present study does not set out to support any one of

the above theoretical positions against another,

it takes an interpersonal vantage point and has a decidedly
Sullivanian flavor. Self- and peer-perceptions will be compared and
the discrepancies between the two will be viewed as reflecting the
distortion inherent to defensive processes. In what follows we

will shift from the theoretical toward the empirical.

The field of experimental personality psychology became
interested in “anxiety-reducing defense mechanisms“ during the late
’40 and early ’50’s by way of a series of perception experiments
then dubbed the “new look“ (Byrne, 1964). The basic premise,
Sullivanian in character, behind these studies was stated by Bruner

and Postman as follows (1947a).

“Perception is a form of adaptive behavior. Its operation reflects
not only the characteristics of sensorineural processes, but also
the dominant needs, attitudes, and values of the organism. For
perception involves a selection by the organism of a relatively
small fraction of the multiplicity of potential stimuli to which it
is exposed at any moment in time“.

In their prototypic experiment, Bruner and Postman (1947)
examined individual differences in adaptation to threatening stimuli
in the form of words with sexual and other potentially unsettling
content. In the first stage of the experiment the undergraduate
subjects were asked to associate to a range of words of varying
estimated threat. Duration of response latency was used as a
measure of the degree of 3512;; threat posed, for that individual,
by each of the 99 stimulus words. Two weeks later subjects were
tachistoscopically presented with 18 words, with 6 words each being
selected from each subject’s highest, lowest, and middle range of

response latencies. The 18 stimulus words were individually

presented for increasing lengths of time until correctly identified.

Two distinct patterns of response to the threatening stimuli
unexpectedly emerged. while one group of subjects showed the
anticipated tendency toward increased delay in response to the more
threatening stimulus words, the other group showed the reverse
pattern of shorter response latencies to the more threatening words.
In other words, one group adapted by avoidance and the other group
adapted by approach to the threatening stimuli. These two patterns
were labeled “perceptual defense“ and “perceptual vigilance“,
respectively. Much experimental work followed from this
ground-breaking study. (For reviews see Blum 1955: Eriksen, 1954;

Golddiamond, 1958).

However, the methodology and some basic assumptions behind
“perceptual defense“ research came under increasing criticism. The
reliability of the mode of measurement was questioned and the
observed results, to cite one critic, could be more parsimoniously
explained in terms of learning and familiarity with the stimulus,
rather than as a reflection of an unconscious perceptual process.
Despite this, interest grew in finding ways of empirically measuring
the two adaptive or defensive styles. As Byrne (1964) wrote:

An examination of the perceptual studies and the subsequent
work suggests rather strongly the presence of an approach-avoidance
sort of dimension with respect to response to threatening stimuli.
. . . these behavior tendencies appear to be fairly pervasive ones
in that they are identifiable in perceptual responses, responses
given to projective tests, behavior in learning and memory tasks,
and in symptoms of maladjustment. Such relational fertility is a
convincing argument for the value of pursuing this variable in
further research. (p. 173).

Over roughly a five year period, through the work of several

researchers, an 127-item Repression-Sensitization Scale, purporting

to measure this approach-avoidance dimension was derived from the
MMPI. Each of the two ends of this scale were viewed as broadly
encompassing two distinct sets of defense mechanisms. The avoidance
or “repression“ end of this scale was considered to be associated
with mechanisms, such as repression, denial, and rationalization,
that served to block awareness of threatening stimuli. The
“sensitizing“ end of the scale was, on the other hand, seen as
related to those defense mechanisms, such as intellectualization and
obsessive rumination, which aim to reduce anxiety by directly
engaging, and thereby attempting to control, the threatening

stimulus (Byrne 1964, p. 169).

The reliability of the final form of the R-S Scale was

acceptable: internal consistency coefficient was reported at .98

and test-retest reliability after a three month period was .82. As
the notion of repression-sensitization had developed out of work on
perceptual defense, it made sense to examine whether the new scale-
would predict the expected differential response to threatening
stimuli. In an unpublished doctoral dissertation, Tempone (1962)
induced a failure experience in an anagram recognition task.
Following this, subjects were tachistiscopically presented with a
series of words among which the solved anagrams were interspersed.
Repressing and sensistizing subjects did exhibit the expected
response to the threatening (failure associated) words. Repressors
showed increased recognition threshhoids to threat, while the
sensitizers showed the reverse pattern of diminished response

latencies. This and several other published studies (e.g., Byrne et

al., 1963; Davison 1963; Sossett 1964) represented the first

hopeful indications of the R-S scale’s construct validity.

Studies were soon conducted relating the new measure of
defense with a variety of personality variables.
For instance, the R-S scale (with low to high scores representing a
continuum from repression to sensitization) showed substantial
negative correlations with the MMPI Hysteria, Lie, Defensiveness (K)
and Ego Strength scales, while substantial postive correlations
obtained with Depression, Psychasthenia, Neuroticism, and Social
Introversion (Joy, 1963: Bell & Byrne, 1974). Other investigators
have found the same pattern of higher R-S scores (i.e., in the
sensitization direction) associated with greater self-reported
distress or psychological maladjustment. while other studies which
were not based on self-report indicated important differences
between repressors and sensitizers, the strikingly high corrlations
between the R-S scale and other personality measures has in recent
times brought the “defense“ interpretation of the scale into

question.

Perhaps the most convincing evidence has been presented by
those who, like Ueinberger et al. (1979), argue that the R-S scale
might best be thought of as an alternate measure of trait anxiety.
For instance, Taylor’s (1953) Manifest Anxiety Scale (MAS) and the
R-S have been found to correlate from .87 to .94 (Abbott, 1972;

Golin et al., 1967; Joy, 1963; Ueinberger et al., 1979).

while the R-S scale is now less frequently employed as a

measure of defensiveness, interest in psychometrically

10

operationalizing “repression“ increased, and the R-S scale played a

part in the development of a more valid method.

The point of departure in this process was the demonstration
that the “repression“ end of the R-S scale actually included two
heterogeneous groups, “defensive repressors“ and “nondefensive
repressor“ (Holroyed, 1972; Kahn, 1971; Lefcourt, 1969. ). while
both repressor types have low R-S scores, they were also
differentiated on the basis of high or low scores on the
Marlowe-Crowne Scale, which is used as the measure of defensiveness

(Crowne & Marlowe, 1964).

Readers are likely aware that the Marlowe-Crowne Scale (MCS)
was originally constructed as a measure of “social desirablity“: or
the tendency to respond to test items in a socially acceptable or
self-enhancing manner (Crowne & Marlowe, 1960). Since its
inception, researchers have increasingly come to a broader view the
scale (for review see Evans, 1980). The empirical support for the
present “defensiveness“ interpretation of the MCS will be

elaborated in the next chapter.

The “defensive repressor“ (high MCS scorer) was said to be
characterized by “perceptual defense“, avoidance of threatening
cognitions and affects, and other manifestations of maladjustment.
Their low R-S scores were viewed as reflecting defensive distortion.
0n the other hand, the low R-S score of the “nondefensive repressor“
was regarded as accurately depicting their lack of maladustment and

an attendant clearer perception of both internal and external

11

reality (Kahn & Schill 1971; Schill & Altzoff 1968, Schill & Black,

1969; Schill, Emmanuel, Pederson, Schneider, a Uachowiak,1970).

Recognition by some researchers that the R-S scale could be

more accurately and econonically understood as a measure of magifggt

ggxigtz rendered obsolete the rather confusing terminology of
“defensive“ and “nondefensive' cgprgsgign. while these terms were

used as recently as 1981 (Nielson & Fleck), greater clarity results
from simply relabelling R-S as anxiety, the term earlier applied to
the MMPI primary factor. Increasingly, however, researchers have
come to simply use an anxiety measure, such as the MAS, in the

first place.

Employment of the MCS with a trait anxiety index permits
differentiation, by way of a two by two matrix, of four styles of
coping with or defending against anxiety. Low and high anxiety
groups are each subdivided into two additional groups. Thus, the
high MCS - low anxiety group has been labeled “repressors“; the low
MCS - low anxiety group is labeled “low-anxious“; high MCS - high
anxiety group has been labeled “defensive high anxious“; and
finally, the low MCS - high anxious group has been labeled
“high-anxious“ (weinberger et al. , 1979; Asendorpf et al., 1983:
Doster, 1975). One clear advantage of this set of terms over those
employed by the repression-sensitization researchers, is that the
measure of defense and that which is defended against, that is,
anxiety, are differentiated and correspond to variables posited by
personality theoreticans since Freud. Important questions about the

MCS remaining largely unanswered include: a) what specific sorts of

12

defenses the MCS measures, and b) what types of internal threats are
actually tapped by a paper and pencil anxiety measure? Despite
these questions. this four-way classification system appears to be a

very useful one, as will become evident in what folows.

Doster (1975) was apparently the first to look at differential
performance of groups of subjects representing these four quadrants,
in,a study on the objectively rated performance and self-perceptions
of subjects in a structured, therapy analogue interview. The
interview followed three weeks after a “role induction“ session in
which the nature and benefits of verbal self-exploration were
described. During the structured interview subjects were instructed
to self-disclose about six individually presented topics. Before
the interview subjects had been asked to anticipate both their
levels of comfort and self-disclosure in relation to each topic.
Following the experiment subjects rated themselves on their ggtggl,
levels of comfort and self-disclosure. The taped interviews were
objectively judged on amount of disclosure, speech duration, silence
quotient, reaction time following presentation of the topic, and

frequency of inquiry.

On the basis of prior research (see Evans, 1982 review) the
two groups scoring lower on the MCS would be expected to disclose
more than the two groups with higher MCS scores. While the low
defensive-low anxious, “better adjusted“ group was judged as most
disclosing (and most verbal) they were, surprisingly, only slightly
more so than the high defensive -high anxiety group. Both the high

defensive-low anxiety “repressors“ gag the low defensive-high

13

anxiety “vulnerables' were significantly less dislcosing than the
above mentioned groups. while these findings were not entirely
consistent with predictions, Doster also reported interesting

findings related to other behavioral and self-report dimensions.

Of particular note were intergroup variations in degree of
agreement between subject and judge-based ratings of disclosure.
Only the lgw ggjgngigg (low MCS) subjects, whether low or high on
anxiety, achieved significant correlations between the cross-source
(self and judge) ratings on self-disclosure. Additionally, all
groups except the high defensive-low anxiety “repressors“ obtained
significant linkages between depth of self-rated disclosure
(disclosure being the assigned task) and time spent verablizing
about each topic. Finally, only for the two low defensive groups
was there a significant relationship between reported comfort in
talking about a topic and the depth of judged self-disclosure. In
other words, the low defensive subjects reported higher levels of
comfort when talking more intimately. In summarizing these and
other findings, several conclusions (Doster, 1975) were offered:

The sensitive behavioral impressions shown by the low defensive
individuals may reflect a greater integration of cognitive,
emotional, and expressive components of interpersonal behavior. The
behavioral correlates of their self-perceptions closely approximated
their pattern of verbal behavior in which depth of self-exploration
varied with duration of speech and lengthy silences. Finally, the
direct relationship between their levels of personal comfort and
depth of self-disclosure provides further evidence of integrated
experiencing among low defensive individuals.

In several respects the role-induction procedure was least effective
with high defensive-low anxious individuals (repressors) . Their
low level of self-exploration and relative lack of integration among

behavioral components are indications of the defensive distortion
and control attributed to this group.

14

Ueinberger, Schwartz, and Davidson (1979) conducted a study
which further explored Doster’s notions of “integration of
components“ (in this case physiological, subjective, and behavioral)
comparing persons with repressive, low-anxious, and anxious coping
styles in their response to a phrase-association task which included
neutral, sexual, and aggressive phrases. During the phrase
association task three physiological measures were also used
including heart rate, spontaneous skin resistance, and forehead
muscle tension. At the behavioral level, reaction time and verbal
disturbance were measured. Following the task, individuals were
asked to rate their awareness of a variety of bodily reactions; and
completed several personality measures one of which differentiated

between cognitively and somatically experienced anxiety.

while two groups of subjects had claimed low anxiety on the
MAS prior to the experimental task, they showed markedly different
patterns of response on the dependent measures. The repressors
(again, defined by high MCS and low MAS trait anxiety scores) showed
a consistent discrepancy between self-avowed and physiologically and
behaviorally assessed anxiety. Repressors’ performance on the
phrase association task was characterized by higher (generally
significantly higher) content avoidance and increasingly slower
reaction times for sexual and aggressive phrases. Their higher
anxiety level was further confirmed by higher levels of verbal
interference, heart rate, sweat gland secretion, and forhead muscle
tension. Across most of these same measures, “high anxious“
persons showed a level of response falling between that of the low

anxious and repressor groups. Thus, those who reported lg! trait

 

Dr

Cc

15

anxiety, in combination with high defensiveness scores, actually

exhibited the highest degree of distress during the experimental

task.

Curiously, these three groups did not differ in terms of
reported awareness of physiological responsivity during this
experiment, this despite the fact that the repressors were
internally undergoing an exceptionally high intensity of reaction.
Further evidence of the repressors’ poorer “integration of
components“ was also apparent in their performance on a trait
anxiety measure (given prior to the task) containing cognitive and
somatic subscales. Only the repressors showed a signifcant
discrepancy between the two subscales, rating self lower on

cognitively than on somatically-experienced anxiety.

An interesting pattern of results also emerged when pre and
post-experiment trait anxiety scores of the three groups were
compared. The low anxious persons’ scores remained relatively
stable, while the repressors actually became even more entrenched in
their defensive denial of anxiety. Investigators reported that all
repressors, without exception, reported lower post-test than
pre-test trait anxiety. The high anxious persons showed the reverse
pattern, rating themselves significantly 59;; anxious at post-test,
their awareness of their own stress during the phrase association

task apparently resulting in a shift in self-perception.

One finding of this study has particular relevance to the
present study in that it relates to how these “coping styles“ can

come to be reflected in self-evaluation and interpersonal

16

orientation. Participants were presented with the final task of

briefly “describing their most important characteristics“ (p. 379).

As stated by the authors, “The repressors preoccupation with
mastering negative emotion and rigorously controlling their behavior
was particularly striking. They clearly value a rational,
nonemotional appraoch to life. . . Each statement reflects the
central importance to repressors of cognitive self-control“. For
example, “not overly worried, I reason rationally“, “utilitarian“,
“I usually plan whatever I do“, “I do not get upset very easily“,
“subjugate emotion“. In contrast, low anxious persons described
themselves in ways that emphasized their spontaniety, flexibility
and interest in interpersonal relationships. To illustrate, “like
being with people“, “outgoing friendly person“, “open, happy,
active“. The self-descriptions of the “high anxious“ (intermediate
MCS and high MAS) subjects tended to reflect, by contrast, a
somewhat more negative and interpersonally withdrawn view of self.
Some examples were, “shy, worried about what others might think“,
“quiet uncomplaining“, “slow in making friends“, “independence. . .
-sometimes to the point of alienation“ (Ueinberger et al, 1979, p.

378).

In an important subsequent study Asendorpf and Scherer (1983)
attempted to replicate and extend Ueinberger’s et al.’s work. As in
that prior study, male undergraduates were asked to give
associations to phrases of sexual, aggressive, or neutral content.
During the task sujects’ pulse rates were measured and facial

responses where recorded via hidden video camera. At the end of the

 

 

1:4
or
he
re
su
se
th
to
vi
th.
was
dii
de:
the
Sig
may

anx

gro.
inx
9P0:
an,”
the
aCPQ

C) O.

17

task subjects rated the intensity of their own emotional responses
on a five point scale. Those emotions rated included, anxiety,
happiness, anger, and sadness. Judges rated the video tapes over a
range of emotions including, expressive, haPPY, anxious, angry, and
surprised. A range of emotional reactions were included in both
self-ratings and judges ratings in an effort to test the hypothsesis
that predicted group differences in anxiety might also be applicable
to other emotions as well. Following the association task subjects
viewed three short movies (neutral, funny, neutral) during (or as
the case may be, following) which each of the preceeding measures
was employed. These conditions were added to “control for
differences in emotional reaction unrelated to anxiety“. Before
describing their results in more detail, it is interesting to note
that it was only in relation to group differences in gnxigtz that
significant results were observed. Thus, the Marlowe-Crowne Scale
may specifically be viewed as a measure of the tendency to deny

anxiety.

Ueinberger’s study had included three of the four possible
groups from the two by two matrix formed by defensiveness and
anxiety. Asendorpf and Scherer included a defensive high anxious
group in addition to the three groups (low anxiety, repressors, high
anxiety) Ueinberger had studied. Specific predictions for each of
the four groups were made in terms of differential performance
across a) self-rated, b) autonomically measured (heart rate), and

c) objectively judged facial response.

 

 

th
an
an
at
ex
ta'
al‘
gr:
thr

fac
ten
rep
eff
of .

wel‘;

And

that

18

After all scores were baseline corrected, the following
patterns of results emerged. Repressors reported low anxiety after
the anxiety provoking association task yet showed high levels of
anxiety both facially and autonomically during the task. The low
anxious subjects, showing the opposite pattern, rated their anxiety
at intermediate levels after the association task, although they
exhibited low levels of facial and autonomic anxiety during the
task. The high-anxious group showed high levels of anxiety across
all three behavioral modalities, while the defensive high-anxious
group scored at consistently intermediate levels on each of the

three.

The investigators view the finding that repressors show high
facial anxiety as supporting the hypothesis that these individuals
tend to be “self-deceptive“ as opposed to “other deceptive“ in their
reports of low anxiety. In other words, their denial of this
affect is most likely the result of a process that takes place out
of conscious awareness-- the title “repressor“ thus fits rather
well. One original finding of this study, as noted above, was that
it is “anxiety“ and not other emotions that is defended against.

And it appears that it is specifically sexual or aggressive stimuli
that activated increases in heart rate and facial anxiety. In all

of this, one hears echoes of classical pyschodynamic theory.

The present construct of “defensive“ or “coping styles“,
defined by the particular organization of trait anxiety and MCS
defensiveness scores, describes not only responses to specific

potentially threatening stimuli, but may also generalize, as

19

Ueinberger’s findings suggest, to encompass more global ways of
navigating the interpersonal world. when placed in an social
situation in which a high premium is placed on self-revelation,
affective responsiveness, and genuine communication, how might
persons representing of the four coping styles respond? Will they
be seen in particular ways by others? And how will they perceive
their own behavior in such circumstances? These questions will be

explored in the present study.

While modeled after the three studies reviewed thus far,
this study will differ methodologically in some important ways. In
each of the cited studies, subjects were selected from samples
depending on the combination of high or low scores on the Marlowe
Crowne and the anxiety measure. To form the experimental groups on
which t-tests and ANOVA were performed, each study excluded over
half of the original subjects (112, 200, 210 in order of
presentation) to insure that final groupings represented “the
extremes“ of MCS and anxiety scores. Both measures represent
continuous variables, but have been treated by the investigators
above as discrete. As a result, much information is lost about the

two variables effects across a wider distribution of scores.

This study will employ the data from the entire sample of
subjects for whom full data sets were obtained, 78 subjects.
Instead of using a t-test or ANOVA design, multiple regression will
be employed. This method will be used to determine main affects
attributable to both defensivenss and anxiety as well as the

additive effects of the two variables combined. If interactive

20

effects are found to be significant, then the next step will be to
unravel the specific nature of these interactions. The method to be
employed, detailed in the methods section, will permit statements
about each of the four “coping“ groups investigated in the germinal

studies on which this study is based.

METHOD

Participants in this study were 86 male and female
undergraduates enrolled in an upper level psychology course
entitled, “Small Experiential Groups for Interpersonal Learning“.
Data were collected from group members enrolled in the ten-week
course in one of three terms. Subjects were informed that
participating in this study was strictly voluntary and not a course
requirement. The 78 persons who completed all measure were included

in this study. Of these 78, 37 were male and 41 were female.

QLQHEE

In accordance with the usual course procedure, participants
were divided into groups composed of from four to seven members.
Group assignments were made primarily on the basis of members’
scheduling constraints. Other related priorities included efforts
to balance males and females in each group and to insure that
friends and acquaintances were placed in different groups. There
were a total of 16 groups. Each group was led by one or two
facilitators. The facilitators were either clinical psychology
graduate students or, more typically, former group members who had
received training in group leadership. Facilitators were n9;
counted among the 78 participants of the study, although their

ratings of others were included.

21

22

Over the course of the ten week term, each group met for a
total of about fifty hours; two 90-minute sessions per week and two
12-hour “marathon“ sessions usually conducted near the third and

seventh weeks of the term.

Essences
Trait Measures

In the first week of the term, all group members were given a
53 item true-false inventory (see Appendix B) combining the 33 items
of the Marlowe-Crowne Scale (MCS) and the 20 items of the Bendig

Short Form of the Manifest Anxiety Scale (B-MAS).

Originally the MCS was constructed as a measure of “social
desirability“, the differential tendency to respond to test items in
a socially desirable manner (Crowne & Marlowe, 1960). while its
psychometric characteristics were satisfactory, exactly what the
scale measured remained ambiguous. Several years after its
inception, Crowne & Marlowe (1964) reinterpreted the scale as
actually measuring the “need for approval“. Still more recent
findings strongly suggest that MCS actually measures, not so much
approval seeking, but the “defensive avoidance of social
disapproval“ (Asendorpf et al., 1983, p. 1335) or “defensive denial
of those aspects of experience which are uniquely and individually
threatening to the self-concept or ego integrity of the individual“
(Millham & Kellogg, 1980, p. 457). while the the MCS continues to
be used to assess the extent to which other scales are “saturated by

social desirability“, in spite of strong evidence discrediting this

23

notion (McCrae & Costa, 1983), researchers have increasingly
employed the MCS as a measure of an individual difference variable
(for reviews, see Strickland, 1977; and Evans, 1980). Other
pertinent MCS studies will be introduced as needed in the discussion
section. The experimental support for the present use of the MCS in
defining four coping or defensive styles has been reviewed in the

introduction.

Bendig’s (1956) short form of Taylor’s (1953) Manifest Anxiety
Scale, is composed of the 20 most predictively valid and internally
consistent items from the original 50-item form. The scale is
considered interchangeable with the longer form and was used in one
of the studies upon which the present work was modeled (Ueinberger
et al., 1979). The MCS and the B-MAS (or MAS) have been found to

correlate between the - .2 to - .45 range (Millimet, 1970).

Interpersonal Measures

Two different rating scales of interpersonal behavior were
employed in this study. One rating scale was administered twice, at
roughly the third and seventh weeks of the term, and the other scale
was administered once at about the eighth week of the term. The
twice-administered measure was used to tap what has repeatedly been
found to be the two basic dimensions of interpersonal behavior (see
review by Hurley, 1980). The dimension labels used in this study
will be those applied by Hurley: ARO (acceptance vs. rejection of
others) and ARS (acceptance vs. rejection of self). The latter

rating scale, devised by this researcher specifically for use in

 

 

 

24

these groups (Myers, 1985), was constructed to allow assessment of
eleven “narrow band“ interpersonal behaviors. Both measures are

described in greater detail below.

The first measure, which yields ARS and ARO scores, was
constructed by Hurley to serve as a time efficient means of gaining
the same basic information provided by, among numerous other
examples, the Interpersonal Checklist (ICL), Interpersonal Behavior
Inventory, or Charts of Social Behavior (LaForge and Suczek, 1955;
Lorr et al., 1965; Benjamin, 1979). The Hurley Interpersonal Rating
Scale (HIRS) is composed of eight bipolar semantic differential
scales, with four scales representing each of the two dimensions.
Several studies (Hurley, 1976; Hurley & Rosenthal, 1978; Small and
Hurley; and Hurley, 1986) have firmly supported the convergent,
discriminant, and construct validity of ARO and ARS measures. Group
member’s were instructed to rate (from O to 9) all members of their
group, including self, on each of the eight scales. The four ARS
subscales are Shows Feelings-~Hides Feelings, Expressive-~Suarded,
Active--Passive, and Dominant--Submissive. The parallel ARO
subscales are Uarm--Cold, Helps Others--Harms Others, Gentle--Harsh,
and Accepts others--Rejects others. Scores from these eight
subscales (four representing each dimension) are then summed to form
ARO and ARS composites. Self-ratings and those given by peers are
tallied separately to permit their separate comparison on each
dimension. All peer-ratings of each member were summed and divided

by the N of group members.

25

The Group Interpersonal Rating Scale (SIRS) is a 24 item
measure composed of 11 miniscales each of which is represented by
two or, less typically, three items (see Appendix C). Participants
were asked to choose on a five point Likert scale how well the item
describes each member’s within-group behavior. The miniscales are
the outcome of a multiple groups confirmatory factor analysis on a
set of 50 original items constructed by the author. The eleven
final scales all have high internal consistency (coefficient alphas
of .86 or above) and showed sufficient independence from each other
to support their inclusion (Myers, 1985). While it is very likely
that these scales are reducible to the ARS and ARO factors or
dimensions, they were devised to provide, in a brief amount of time,
a broad and highly differentiated profile of a group member’s range
of interpersonal behaviors as viewed by both self and peers.
Certain of these scales may be viewed as encompassing non-situation
specific types of behavior, while others are more clearly pertinent
to a group therapy or interpersonal learning group situation. The
scales are labeled as follows, Participation, Intimacy, Insight,
Anger Acknowledgement, Interest in Feedback, Caring, Hostility,

Group Investment, Self-Effacement, Anxiety, and Liking.

As will be the case with the two HIRS dimensions, total scores
on individual scales will be summed across peers/raters, and divided
by Nlof raters, to yield a mean score on each scale for each group
member. The means may then be compared with the member’s

self-ratings on each scale. For HIRS dimensions and GIRS subscales,

26

the differences between the peer and self-ratings (P-S) will be

calculated and will referred to as “discrepancy scores“.

One additional derived measure labeled “rater’s range“ will be
examined in this study. Rater’s range refers to the range of scores
an individual is willing allot when rating own and peers behavior.
Hurley (1986) notes that while rater’s range has been studied by
other investigators (Saal, Downey, & Lahey, 1980; Schmitt and Lapin,
1980), little attention has been focused on the interpersonal
correlates of range. Examining rater’s range computed on the two
HIRS dimensions, Hurley (1986) found that narrower-range group
members tended to give g1; group members, self included, higher
ratings than did wider-range members. Interestingly, peers tended
to view the narrow-range user as nonassertive (low self-acceptance)
and as extremely friendly (other-accepting). In contrast to members
with narrower ranges, the wider-range members were viewed as
“moderately“ friendly and relatively more assertive. Hurley
concluded that narrower-range members “seem mainly oriented toward
avoiding interpersonal tensions through a nonassertive and overly
deferential manner while harboring an inflated view of self“. By
contrast “the wider-range users’ interpersonal posture appears more

open, better-balanced, and noninflated“.

In the present study MCS measured defensiveness will be
expected to correlate with narrower range as computed on the two
HIRS dimensions. More specific predictions will be put forward in

the following chapter.

Prgggggrg

As previously described, the Marlowe-Crowne and Bendig MAS
were administered in the initial full class meeting. At this time
the general nature of the study was explained as dealing with
variables related to group members perceptions of each other. Both
orally and in written instructions, it was explained that
participation in the study was strictly voluntary and could be
ceased at any time. Participants were advised that their scores on
the personality measure, and ratings from the SIRS would remain
fully confidential. As the HIRS has traditionally been used as
feedback device in this small group oriented course, members were

also aware that these ratings would be shared within each group.

The HIRS was administered in approximately the third and
seventh weeks of the groups, about 21 and 42 hours into each group’s
life. It takes approximately 15 minutes to rate all members of a
group including self. Members were allowed several days to complete
and turn in their rating packets. After the results were compiled,
each member was given complete feedback about how s/he had rated and
been rated by each other group member on within group behaviors.
Each group typically spends an hour or more reviewing, clarifying,
and reacting to (or silently stewing over, as sometimes happens)

their ratings in the group’s subsequent session.

The 24-item SIRS was distributed and completed during the
eighth week of the term. The average amount of time needed to

finish these ratings was estimated to have been about twenty

A"

28

minutes. As noted above, members were assured that GIRS data would
remain confidential. Full data sets (MCS, B-MAS, HIRS, SIRS) were
obtained from 78 out of 86 potential participants. Two members

dropped out of their groups prior to the administration of the SIRS,

and six members chose not the complete the SIRS.

HYPOTHESES AND METHOD OF ANALYSIS

The following hypotheses are primarily based on the results
(see previous section) of Weinberger, et al. (1979) and Asendorpf et
al. (1983), who compared repressors with the other coping types and
found that repressors manifested defensive avoidance of negative
affects; particularly anger and anxiety. Weinberger et al. gave .
additional evidence that coping styles may also be more generally

reflected in stable modes of interpersonal relating.

In general the Repressors are hypothesized as the most
defensive and least interpersonally competent group and the Low
Anxious as the least defended and most interpersonally competent
group. The remaining two groups are expected to fall in between

these two: more specific predictions will be made below.

In the interest of conciseness and clarity, the Marlowe-Crowne
Scale (MCS) will at times be referred to as the measure of
“defensiveness“ and the Bendig Manifest Anxiety Scale (B-MAS) as the
measure of “anxiety“ or “trait anxiety“. Additionally, each of the

four coping groups will be referred to as follows:

a) Low-Anxious (LA) = Lower MCS and Lower B-MAS

b) High-Anxious (HA)

Lower MCS and Higher B-MAS
c) Repressors (REP) = Higher MCS and Lower B-MAS

d) Defensive High-Anxious (DHA)

Higher MCS and Higher B-MAS

29

Pger-Rgtingg

Hzgothggis 1a:

There will be an interaction between defensiveness and anxiety
with regard to peer-ratings of interpersonal behavior, such that
Repressors, among the four groups will receive the least favorable
peer evaluations. By contrast, the Low-Anxious group will receive
the most favorable peer evaluations. Between these two groups, the
Defensive High-Anxious will be rated less positively than the
High-Anxious group. In summary, LA ) HA ) DHA ) REP.

Hzgothgsig 19:

When the simple main effects of MCS defensiveness are
considered individually, higher MCS scores will be associated with
less favorable peer evaluations.

lf- tin

Hzggthgsig 23:

There will be an interaction between the defensiveness and
anxiety variables such that the Repressors will rate themselves most
favorably, when compared with the other three groups, across all
interpersonal variables. No specific predictions are made in
relation to the remaining three groups.

H th is :

When the simple main effects of MCS defensiveness are
considered individually, higher MCS scores will be associated with
more favorable self-evaluations on all interpersonal variables.

P r- in lf-R ti ' r

30

31

The independent variables will interact such that Repressors,
when compared with the other three groups, will be found to have the
largest peer-rating/self-rating discrepancy scores. The Low-Anxious
group will have the smallest degree of discrepancy, followed by
High-Anxious, and Defensive High-Anxious. In summary, on magnitude
of discrepancy: Rep ) DHA ) HA ) LA. Since a majority of members
tend to be self-overraters the “peer minus self“ formula is expected
to produce (in sum) negatively signed discrepancies for all groups.

Hzggthegig 3b:

When the simple main effects of MCS defensiveness are
considered individually, higher MCS scores will be associated with
larger (negatively signed) peer/self discrepancy scores on all
variables.

Ratgr’s Range chreg

Hzgothgsig 4a:

The independent variables will interact such that Repressors
will use the narrowest range of ratings in evaluating peers (see
method section for description of “range“). Low-Anxious Members
will use the largest range. The remaining two groups will fall
between these two, with the DHA group showing a narrower range than
HA. In Summary, the results on rater’s range will be as follows:
Rep ( DHA ( HA ( LA.

Hzpothggis 49:

When the simple main effects of MCS defensiveness are
considered individually, higher MCS scores will be associated with
narrower rater’s range scores.

In this study, peer-ratings (as opposed to self-ratings) will
be considered the closest accessible approximation of “objective
reality“ of interpersonal behavior. While it is certain that

peers may construe what they observe in ways that may systematically

distort “objective reality“, and in so doing influence the

A"

,..-~.-‘-» —

 

 

32
interpersonal phenomenon taking place, this amalgam of accurate and
inaccurate perceptions does, nevertheless, form the consensual
“interpersonal reality“ that each individual experiences,
interprets, and responds to. As all ratings given by peers (from 4
to 7) will be pooled, we can say that these composite scores
represent the person’s “effective interpersonal behavior“ as it is

perceived by peers.

Individuals who rate their own behavior considerably higher or
lower than peers did, will be charged with having a “distorted“ view
of self within this small group context. These distortions, as
discussed previously, are considered a direct outcome and a
reflection of the individuals defensive functioning, and it is here
assumed that the distortion/defensiveness extends into other areas
of the person’s life as well. It may be noted that a majority of

group members tend to overrate-self (Flores, 1986).

M HO F ANALY IS

Multiple regression analysis will be employed with MCS
“Defensive“ and B-MAS “Anxiety“ being used as predictor variables of

the interpersonal perception dependent measures.

As a first step in this analysis, the main effects of each
the two predictor variables on the dependent measures will be
assessed by means of Pearson’s 5. Next, multiple regression of the
MCS and B-MAS with the dependent measures will allow assessment of

additive effects. Finally the MCS X B-MAS interaction will be

33

entered into the regression equation. If a significant interaction
is found, then a further analysis will be performed to highlight the
nature of the interaction. Both predictor variables will be
divided at their medians and a 2 x 2 table constructed, thus
allowing direct comparison of the four coping styles on those
dependent variables showing a significant interaction. This further
analysis will only be performed for dependent variables for which

there was a significant defensiveness X anxiety interaction.

Given the relatively small sample size in the present study,
data from males and females will be analyzed jointly. In the two
major works on which this study is based, all subjects were male
(Weinberger et al., 1979 and Asendorpf et al., 1983). Thus, while
it seems likely that there are sex differences in the interpersonal
behavior of coping group members, this possibility will need to be

empirically explored in future research.

Throughout this study, all hypothesized linkages between most
variables will be tested for significance at the .05 level using
one-tailed tests. Since no specific predictions were made regarding
B-MAS and dependent measure correlations, two-tailed tests of
significance will be employed for these linkages. In the interest
of highlighting general trends in the data, relationships reaching

the .10 significance level will also be reported.

1.

RESULTS

Preliminary Statistical Analyses of Megsurureg

A. Predictor Variables

The Marlowe-Crowne Scale (MCS) and Bendig’s short-form of the

Manifest Anxiety Scale (B-MAS) were the two predictor, or

independent, variables employed in this investigation. Means,

standard deviations, and ranges obtained for these measures are

shown in Table I.

MCS

Table 1

Means, Standard Deviations, and Ranges

for MCS and B-MAS (N,= 78)

Mgan Stanggcg ngigtion Rgngg
12.73 4.90 2 - 26
8.76 3.87 0 - 20

34

35

As anticipated, there was a low but significant negative
correlation between the MCS and MAS (L (78) a -.28). This degree of
relationship is consistent with the findings of other researchers who
have reported correlations of between -.20 and -.45 (Millmet, 1970).
The value in multiple regression analysis of having predictor varibles

of lower levels of shared variance has been noted by Cohen (1983).

It was considered important to examine the the degree of
relationship between the two predictor varibles and the sex of the group
member. The level of association between MCS and sex was nil (r (78) a
.00), while the link with the MAS was small but significant (r (78) I
.23, p ( .023). This positive correlation indicates that the women

tended to score higher for anxiety than men.

8. Dependent Variables

The dependent measures examined in this study include the two
dimensioned HIRS (Hurley Interpersonal Rating Scale) and SIRS (Group
Interpersonal Rating Scale). It may be recalled that the HIRS yields
two composite scores representing the two superordinate dimensions of
interpersonal behavior; and additionally that the measure was
administered in the 3rd and 7th weeks of each groups’ 10 week life-span.
The SIRS, by contrast, included 11 behaviorally narrow-band miniscales

and was administered only once at approximately the 8th week.

In what follows, relevant psychometric data will be presented for
both measures. Descriptive statistics for the additional scales derived
from the two primary instruments will also be shown, that is,

discrepancy and rater’s range scores.

36

1. Hurley Interpersonal Rating Scale (HIRS)

A. Self-Acceptance and Other-Acceptance

Table 2 provided means, standard deviations, and ranges for the
HIRS’ two dimensions, acceptance/rejection of self (ARS) and
acceptance/rejection of others (ARO). Both “early“ (3rd week) and
“late“ (7th week) data are represented in Table 2. On each occasion
both peer and self-ratings were collected. Table 2’s means and standard
deviations are comparable to those found in other studies involving
college populations (Hurley, 1986). In this and all other tables
relating to the HIRS, “peer“ ratings were based on the mean of ratings

given by peers.

B. Peer/Self Discrepancy Scores

Table 3 shows descriptive statistics for peer/self discrepancy
scores for the HIRS. As discussed earlier, discrepancy scores are
formed by subtracting aggregated and averaged peer-ratings from
self-ratings (P - 3). Thus, sglf—ovgrrating is indicated by a ngggtivg
sign and self-gnggrrating is indicated by a positive sign.

C. Rater’s Range Scores for SAR and ARO

Rater’s range (see method section for description) was calculated
by subtracting each group member’s lowest from their highest rating
given to others and self. Range was figured on each of the two HIRS

dimensions at both 3rd and 7th week administrations. Table 4 shows the

237

TABLE 2

ARS and ARO Peer and Self-Ratings
Mean, Standard Deviations, and Range (N 870)

 

Vari le

3rd Heel:
ARS (peer)
ARS (self)
M0 (peer)

ARO (self)

711: link
4115 (peer)
ARS (self)
ARO (peer)

ARO (self)

M

21.3
24.6
25.3

25.?

23.5
25.8
26.5

26.4

fl

6.6

6.6

5.4

5.9

5.7

5.6

M

7.0 " 33.1
3e“ - 340°
13.3 ' 33.4

7.0 - 34.0

6.3 - 34.3
10.0 - 36.0
15.2 - 35.3
0.0 - 35.0

 

3B

TABLE3

ARS and ARD Discrepancies !
Means, Standard Deviations, and Ranges (N 8 78)

 

29.11011 ".21.". 549.9. ism
3rd Heel

ARS “3.2 5.7 ‘13.0 10 3.4

A33 '0.4 5.0 “15.0 to 13.9
7th “"3

M3 '2.3 4.3 '13.7 10 10.3

m 02 5e“ '93 I0 0‘e2

 

! 8 Hear rating by group peers ninug self-rating

ARS and ARO Rater’s Range

39

TABLE4

Means, Standard Deviations, and Ranges (M 8 78)

 

mm

Third Heel

ARS

Seventh Meek

ARS

19.8

13.0

17.5

13.2

5.0.

6.5

4.9

m

6.0 r 36.0

3.0 - 32.0

7.0 - 32.0

2.0 - 26.0

 

40

relevant descriptive statistics for rater’s range. Group members were
more inclined to use greater range when rating peer’s for

self-acceptance (ARS) as compared with other-acceptance (ARO).
2. Group Interpersonal Rating Scales (SIRS)

As discussed previously, the SIRS contains 11 behaviorally
specific miniscales. Each group member rated peers and self on the 25
items of the SIRS, with the exception that members did not rate self on
the two “Liking“ items. As with the the HIRS, peer ratings were
aggregated and divided by the N of members in the group; thus self and
peer-ratings are in comparable units of measurement. It may be
recalled that the range of possible scores for each item, and each

scale, was from 1 to 5.

Table 5 shows descriptive statistics for both SIRS peer and
self-ratings. Included here are also the reliabilities (coefficient
alphas) for each scale. Coefficient alphas (Nunnally), 1978) were
figured separately for peer and self ratings. The internal consistency
of most scales was quite high. All alphas of peer-ratings were above
.84, and seven of ten alphas for self-ratings were above .70. The
three lower self-rating alphas were on Hostility (.65), Feedback
Interest (.59), and Self-Effacement (.55). There are two likely
explanations for the lower self-rating alphas: a) members may use a
slightly different standard of evaluation on certain items when
considering their own behavior, and, b) the fact that self-rating

coefficient alphas were based on 78 individual ratings in contrast to

41

TABLE 5

Group Interpersonal Rating Scales (SIRS)
Coefficient Alpha, Mean, Standard Deviation, and Range (N 8 78)

 

Lmi I 4.9.11 h be». .54).. teen

Participation (P) f .97 3.3 .9 1.6 - 4.9
Participation (S) i .86 3.8 .8 2.0 - 5.8
IMIIICY (P) .96 2.? a8 1a3 ' ‘06
Intinacy (S) .82 3.1 .9 1.8 - 5.8
Insight (P) .89 3.1 .7 1.6 - 4.8
Insight (S) .72 3.7 .8 2.0 - 5 0
Anger Acknoul. (P) .92 3.0 .9 1.4 - 4.8
“fl? BIKINI. (S) 078 3a5 1a“ 005 - 5.0
Feedback Interest (P) .88 3.5 .7 2.0 - 4.9
Feedback Interest (8) .59 4.1 .7 2.0 - 5.8
Caring (P) .96 3.5 .8 2.0 - 5.0
Caring (S) .83 3.8 .8 1.5 - 5.8
Group Investnent (P) .93 3.9 .7 1.2 - 5.8
Group Investment (5) .70 4.3 .7 2.0 - 5.0
Hostility (P) .89 2.3 .8 1.0 - 4.1
Hostility (S) .65 2.2 .9 1.0 - 5.8
Self-Effacenent (S) .56 2.6 .9 1.8 - 5.8
Anxiety (P) .94 2.6 .8 1.2 - 4.7
Anxiety (8) .87 2.2 .9 1.0 - 4.3
Liking (P) .91 3.8 .6 1.9 - 4.8

 

f (P) 8 peer-ratings
s (S) 8 self-ratings

442

TABLE 6

Peer Minus Self-Rating Discrepancy Scores for SIRS
Mean, Standard Deviation, and Range (H 8 78)

 

USCISDII Mggg t via ' £1591

Participation -0.5 0.7 -2.7 to 1.1
lntinacy -0.4 0.7 -2.8 to 1.6
Insight -0.6 0.8 -2.8 to 1.2
Anger Acknoul. -0.5 1.0 -2.6 to 2.2
Feedback Interest -0.6 0.8 -2.5 to 1.4
Caring -0.3 0.7 -1.6 to 0.9
Group Invest-ant -8.3 0.7 -1.7 to 1.7
Hostility 0.1 0.9 -2.6 to 2.4
Self-Effacenent 0.1 0.7 -1.8 to 2.0

M318" 0.3 0.7 -107 to 1.3

 

43
over 300 peer ratings (prior to aggregation). The higher number of

ratings virtually insures an increment in reliability (Nunnally, 1978).

Table 6 provides SIRS peer and self-rating discrepancy scores.
As was the case with HIRS discrepancies, self-ratings were subtracted
from peer-ratings, thus, a negative discrepancy score indicates
self-overrating and a positive score indicates self-underrating in
comparison to peers’ perspective. It may be noted in the majority of
means below, that self-overestimation is more typical than the converse.
This pattern is reversed, of course, for the three behaviorally
“negative“ scales in which higher scores describe less desirable
behavior: Hostility, Self-Effacement, and Anxiety. For these three
latter variables gogitivelz signed discrepancy indicated

self-underestimation of the negative characteristic.

II. Results of Hzggthesgg

In all there were a total of 4? dependent variables examined.
Twenty-one of these variables achieved, at a minimum, the .10 level
of significance. Hypotheses related to the four coping styles
received minimal and inconsistent support. Hypotheses pertaining to

the main effects of MCS “defensiveness“ faired slightly better.

Tables 7, 8, 9, and 10 will be alluded to frequently in this
section so each is briefly described here. Table 7 shows Pearson’s
g of both predictor variables, defensiveness and trait anxiety, with
all HIRS variables. Table 8 provides the same information for all
SIRS variables. Table 9 incorporates the significant (p ( .05 and g
marginally significant ( .10) results from Tables 7 and 8, while
additionally providing the results of the multiple regression
analysis in which the MCS X B-MAS Interaction was entered into the
regression equation for each of the dependent variables. Variables
revealing a significant MCS X B-MAS interaction, in the absence of
significant main effects, were also included in Table 9. The change
in the multiple correlation coefficient, and the significance of the
change in 32, from the combined to the interactive MCS/B-MAS effects
may be noted. Table 10 presents the four MCS X B-MAS cell means
for Table 9’s significant interactions: providing evidence relevant
to hypotheses predicting differences of each of the four coping
groups. As described in the method section, coping group membership

was determined by performing median splits on the MCS and B-MAS

44

445

TABLE?

Pearson Predict Murat Correlations of Marlowe-Crane Scale (HIS)
and Bendig Manifest Anxiety Scale (84845) with
HIRS Dependent Measures (H 8 78)

 

n V i le
Third Heek

ARS (peer)
ARS (self)
ARS (P/S Discrep)

ARD (peer)
PRO (Self)
ARO (P/S Discrep)

Seventh Heek

ARS (peer)
ARS (self
ARS (P/S Discrep)

ARO (peer)
ARO (self)
ARO (P/S Discrep)

Third Meek

ARS (Rater’s Range)
ARO (Rater’s Range)

Seventh lieek

Hts (Rater’s Range)
ARD (Rater’s Range)

E E
Defengivenefi $1.131
an] -005
.12 .07
“513 -als
‘.03 -nl’
.10 '.04
“.13 3 '.12
.03 -006
.03 .03
’0', 'a33
'.03 -e38
.10 ”.13
‘.13 .00
-n27 I n02
”.27 t .19
‘.10 .10
'.10 .13

 

‘ P < InlI 'p < IoSI

8 p(.10

HIS correlations 8 one-tailed tests
G-MAS Correlations 8 two-tailed tests

416

TABLE 8

Pearson Product Monent Correlations of Marlowe-Crowne Scale (MCS)
and the Manifest Anxiety Scale (MAS) with
GIRS Dependent Measures

 

1185 ms
Madmen mm:
Variable;
Participation (peer) -.01 -.11
Participation (self) -.01 -.04
PIS Discrepancy -.01 -.10
Intinacy (peer) -.13 .11
Intinacy (self) -.17 8 .28
PIS Discrepancy .07 -.13
Insight (peer) -.12 -.03
Insight (self) -.08 -.D4
PIS Discrepancy -.03 .81
Anger Acknonl. (peer) -.86 .85
Anger Acknonl. (self) .24 I -.17
PIS Discrepancy -.31 f .22 4
Feedback Interest (peer) -.12 .85
Feedback Interest (self) .13 -.I3
PIS Discrepancy -.22 I .88
Caring (peer) -.05 -.01
Caring (self) -.85 -.18
PIS Discrepancy .00 .11
Group Investnent (peer) .83 .03
Group Inveshaent (self) .12 -.02
PIS Discrepancy -.18 .86
Hostility (peer) .09 .08
Hostility (self) .17 8 .21
PIS Discrepancy -.10 -.16
Self-Effacenent (peer) .04 .23 !
Self-Effacenent (self) .02 .31 f
PIS Discrepancy .81 -.14
Anxiety (peer) .17 8 .24 8
Anxiety (self) -.05 .33 f
PIS Discrepancy .23 i -.14
Liking (peer) .85 -.12

 

f p ( .81. i p ( .05. I p ( .10
MCS correlations 8 one-tailed tests
8-MAS correlations 8 two-tailed tests

47

TABLE 9

Multiple Correlation Analysis of Additive and Interactive Effects
of MCS and D-MAS on Selected HIRS and SIRS Variables

 

 

My; Multiplg Cornelatig
MCS MAS MCS MAS Interaction
HIRS Variables
ARD (peer) 3rd -.08 -.19 .08 .23 a .26
ARD (peer) 7th -.03 -.18 .03 .28 i .35 I
ARD (disc) 3rd 8 -.18 -.12 .18 .25 .25
ARS (range) 3rd -.27 -.12 .27 .27 a .29
ARD (range) 3rd -.27 .19 .27 a .38 .31
ARS (range) 7th -.10 .10 .10 .12 .24 8
SIRS Variables
Intinacy (self) -.17 .20 .17 8 .24 .24
Insight (peer) -.12 -.03 .12 .14 .24 !
Anger Ackn. (self) .24 -.17 .24 I .26 .26
Anger Ackn. (disc) -.31 .22 .31 f .34 .35
Feedback Int. (disc) -.22 .88 .22 i .22 .25
Hostility (peer .09 .08 .09 .13 .26 8
Hostility (self) .17 .21 .17 .32 a .33
Hostility (disc) -.10 -.16 .10 .22 8 .24
Self-Efface. (peer) .04 .23 .04 .25 I .25
Self-Efface. (self) .02 .31 .82 .33 f .35
Anxiety (peer) .17 .24 .17 .34 f .39 8
Anxiety (self) -.05 .33 .05 .33 f .33
Anxiety (disc) .23 -.14 .23 i .25 .36 !
Like .05 -.12 .05 .12 .39 4

 

f8p(.fl l8p(.M 88p(.w
3 disc 8 discrepancy

48

TABLE 10

Coping Group Cell Means and Ranks for Dependent Variables
Uith Significant MC X 84148 Interactions

 

Mime:
REF" om 144 LA
Vggiable
HIRS
ARD 7th (peer) 27.95 24.28 27.46 26.16
(1) (4) (2) (3)
ARS 7th (range) I 16.17 18.11 18.16 18.06
(4) (2) (1) (3)
SIRS
Insight (peer) 3.31 2.70 3.34 3.05
(2) (4) (1) (3)
Anxiety (peer) I 2.38 3.11 2.31 2.44
(3) (1) (4) (2)
Anxiety (disc) .46 .46 .03 .32
(1) (1) (4) (3)
Hostility (peer) 2.39 2.45 2.09 2.12
(2) (1) (4) (3)
Liking (peer) 4.03 3.51 4.01 3.74
(1) (4) (2) (3)

 

All Interactions significant at p ( .05 or unless I 8 p ( .10

REP 8 Repressors: DHA 8 Defensive High-Anxious;
HA 8 High-Anxious; LA 8 LmhAnxioos

49

data. (See Appendix D for MCS and B-MAS descriptive statistics for

each coping group).

Peer-Ratings
H th i 1a:

There will be an interaction between defensiveness and anxiety
with regard to peer-ratings of interpersonal behavior, such that
Repressors, among the four groups will receive the least favorable
peer evaluations. By contrast, the Low-Anxious group will receive
the most favorable peer evaluations. Between these two groups, the
Defensive High-Anxious will be rated less positively than the
High-Anxious group. In summary, LA > HA > DHA > REP.

Of nineteen peer-rated HIRS and GIRS dependent variables only
five revealed significant and two marginally significant (1 < .10)
MCS X B-MAS interactions. As shown in Table 9, these variables
were: ARO week 7, ARS range Week 7, Insight, Hostility, Anxiety
(peer’s and discrepancy), and Liking. Table 10’s, cell means also
show that hypothesis 1a was disconfirmed for each of above
variables. On none of the five relevant variables were the
Repressors rated lgggl favorably, or the Low-Anxious rated most
favorably, as had been predicted. Table 10 shows that in each case
the Defensive High-Anxious group received the least favorable
ratings. In summary they were rated as least accepting of others,
least insightful, most anxious, most hostile, and least liked. By
a very small and statistically nonsignificant margin, the Repressors
received the highest ratings on other-acceptance (ARO 7th) and Like

scales. Somewhat difficult to integrate with these findings, but

more in line with hypothesis 1a and 1b, was the result that

SD

Repressors were rated second highest on Hostility, Just below the

Defensive High-Anxious Group.

In summary, there was no support for the prediction that
Repressors would be rated as least competent and the Low-Anxious as
most competent. There was, however, relatively strong evidence
supporting a view of the Defensive High-Anxious as demonstrating

poorer interpersonal functioning, as rated by peers.

Hzggthegig 19:

when the simple main effects of MCS defensiveness are
considered individually, higher MCS scores will be associated with
less favorable peer evaluations.

In terms of statistical significance, this prediction was 391
supported by the results of this study. However, if one examines
trends across all peer-ratings a pattern of results is apparent.
Combining the HIRS and GIRS, of the fifteen peer-ratings, in eleven
instances there was an invgrgg correlational link between MCS and
(peer-rated) effective interpersonal functioning. In these trends,
in other words, MCS gig weakly but generally predict less favorable

peer evaluations. All of these correlations were quite weak,

however, and none exceeded -.17.

51

There will be an interaction between the defensiveness and
anxiety variables such that the Repressors will rate themselves most
favorably, when compared with the other three groups, across all
interpersonal variables. No specific predictions are made in
relation to the remaining three groups.

Hypothesis 2a received no support. There were no significant
nor marginally significant (p ( .10) interactions of the two

predictor variables in relation to any of the self-rated variables

from either the HIRS or GIRS.

mum:

when the simple main effects of MCS defensiveness are
considered individually, higher MCS scores will be associated with
higher self-evaluations on all interpersonal variables.

Of fourteen OIRS and HIRS self-rating linkages with
defensiveness only only Anger Acknowledgement (.24 g, ( .05)
reached a statistically significant level of correlation and two

others reached marginal levels of association, Hostility (.17 g <

.10) and Intimacy (-.17, g < .10).

Of these three, only Anger Acknowledgement (AA) was in the
hypothesized 'positive' or 'self-enhancing' direction. A person
alloting self a higher rating on AA is saying, 'If I were ever
angry, I would certainly admit it' (see Appendix C for items). In
other words, they are denying that they would consciously suppress

this affect.

The Hostility and Intimacy results are counter to expectation.
The high MCS scorer is somewhat more likely to perceive self as

'angry' and 'critical' and as unwilling to disclose 'intimate or

52

personal' information. Neither of these findings was predictable

from a review of the MOS literature.

In terms of non-significant trends across all self-ratings:
MCS linked with all four HIRS variables (3rd and 7th weeks) with the
expected positive correlations (.08 to .12); SIRS positive/negative
sign trends were inconsistent, however, forming no apparent

patterns.

P r- in an S lf-Ratin Di r n

The independent variables will interact such that Repressors,
when compared with the other three groups, will be found to have the
largest peer-rating/self-rating discrepancy scores. The Low-Anxious
group will have the smallest degree of discrepancy, followed by
High-Anxious, and Defensive High-Anxious. In summary, on magnitude
of discrepancy: Rep ) DHA > HA > LA. Since a majority of members
tend to be self-overraters the I'peer minus self' formula is expected
to produce (in sum) negatively signed discrepancies for all groups
(Flores, 1986).

A significant MCS X B-MAS interaction was found for only one
of fourteen SIRS and HIRS discrepancy scores. As shown in Table 9,
this interaction was present on Anxiety (disc)., R2 change, p < .05.
As seen in Table 10, all four coping groups had 'positively' signed
discrepancy means, indicating underrating of self on this variable.
Hypothesis 3a, which predicted the greatest amount of
self-underrating on Anxiety to be shown by Repressors and the least
by the Low-Anxious, was not supported. The Repressors and

Defensive High-Anxious both reached equally high levels of

discrepancy, with the High-Anxious group showing the smallest

53

discrepancy, and the Low-Anxious mean discrepancy magnitude was

closer to that of the the two high MCS groups.

Hzgothgsis 3b:

when the simple main effect of MOS defensiveness are
considered independently, higher MCS scores will be associated with
larger peer/self discrepancy scores on all variables.

For two of fourteen peer/self discrepancy ratings there were
significant main effects due to MCS defensiveness. One of these
results involved Anxiety, which was discussed under hypothesis 3a--
nothing more need be added except that this is the result predicted.
The other MCS main effect concerned Anger Acknowledgement (AA),
-.31, p < .05. Also in accord with hypothesis 3b, the results
indicate that higher MCS scorers tend to overrgte their willingness

to admit to negative affects.

Ratgr’g Range figgrgg

The independent variables will interact such that Repressors
will use the narrowest range of ratings in evaluating peers.
Low-Anxious Members will use the largest range. The remaining two
groups will fall between these two, with the DHA group showing a
narrower range than HA. In summary, the result on rater’s range
will be as follows: Rep ( DHA < HA ( LA.

Of four possible cases, one marginally significant
interaction emerged in relation to the rater’s range score
for 7th week self-acceptance ratings (see Table 9). For this

variable Hypothesis 4a was partially supported in that Repressors

54

used the narrowest range of scores in evaluating their peers
self-acceptance (ARS), see Table 10. Ranges for the other three

groups were about equal.

Hzggthegis 4b:

When the simple main effects of H03 defensiveness are
considered individually, higher MCS scores will be associated with
narrower rater’s range scores.

This hypothesis received rather strong support. Of the four
HIRS range scores examined in this study all showed negative
correlational links, of from -.10 to -.27, with the MOS (see Table
7). In brief, the higher the level of MOS defensiveness the
smaller the range of scores the group member was likely to allot.
The third week ARS and ARO range scores both attained -.27 (g < .05)
linkages, and the two 7th week ranges linked nonsignificantly, -.10.
The 7th week range score correlations were likely truncated by the

fact that a majority of members tend to allot somewhat higher

ratings at this later stage of their groups.

Anxiety (B-HAS) Prggigtgg Uariaplg

Because the Anxiety predictor variable was not a focus, in and
of itself, of this study no hypotheses were formulated. However,
there were some noteworthy linkages between this variable and the
HIRS and SIRS dependent variables. All tests of significance were

two-tailed.

55

ngr-Rgtings

Anxiety (B-MAS) linked with marginal significance with four of
fifteen SIRS and HIRS peer-ratings. To summarize results from
Tables 7 and 8, these variables were: other-acceptance (ARO) 3rd
and 7th weeks, -.19 and -.IB respectively; 'Self-Effacement, -.23;
and Anxiety, -.24. In each case the trait anxiety measure predicts

less effective group functioning, as perceived by peers.

Self-Rgtingg

Tables 7 and 8 show that of the fourteen SIRS and HIRS
self-ratings correlations with Anxiety (B-HAS), four reached
statistical significance, and one was marginally significant.

These variables were: Intimacy (.20), Anger Acknowledgement (-.17),
Hostility (.21), Self-Effacement (.31), and Anxiety (.33). Except
for Intimacy’s correlation, higher B-MAS predicts greater

self-criticalness in assessing within group behavior.

Pe r/ If i n ies

For only two of the total 14 discrepancy variables was a
significant or near significant (p < .10) correlations found with
B-MAS 'anxiety'. The two variables were Anger Acknowledgement (.22)
and Hostility (-.16). The positive AA link, indicates that higher
B-HAS scorers, relative to peer’s evaluations, tend to underrate

their willingness to reveal negative affects. The negative

56

Hostility link suggests that higher B-MAS predicts a slightly
exaggerated view of one’s expressions of 'anger' and 'criticalness
of others“, relative to how peers perceived the higher B-MAS member

with regard to these behaviors.

Rang:

All four correlations between range and the B-HAS were
nonsignificantly positive (.10 to .19). Thus, self-reported

anxiety predicts a slight tendency to allot a wider range of scores.

DISCUSSION

The present study investigated the combined ability of two
personality measures to predict the interpersonal behavior of
members of small groups. The predictor measures were MCS for
defensiveness and B-MAS for trait anxiety. Dependent variables were
the subscales of two interpersonal behavior perception measures
completed by each group member on other group members, self

included.

Following-up and extending previous research, a primary aim
was to clarify the interactive and, less centrally, main effects of
the predictor variables. Given the presence of significant
interactions, an ultimate focus was on hypothesized differences
between the four 'coping groups' formed by the 2 X 2 matrix division
of subjects on the predictor variables. Overall the results were
mixed and some instances counter to expectation. Some interesting

findings did emerge, however.

The discussion is divided into two sections. First, issues
concerning aspects of the measures employed will be addressed. This
will be followed by a discussion of the central results of the study

and their relationship to prior findings.

I. V i l l ' P ri n i

A. Marlowe-Crowne Scale (MES)

57

58

The sample mean score of 12.73 for the MCS -- the measure of
defensiveness -- was in the lower ranges of means reported for
college populations. In his literature review, Evans (1982) found
that in 84 studies over 80% of sample means fell between 12 - 17.
The standard deviation for the MOS in this sample was 4.9 and is

commensurate with other studies as, again, reviewed by Evans.

As earlier mentioned, the .OO correlation between MCS and sex
is in keeping with other studies in the literature (see Evans, 1982
review). Because of this, it was considered appropriate to perform

analyses on the pooled data of males and females.

8. Bendig Manifest Anxiety Scale (B-MAS)

The mean for the B-MAS was 8.76, with a standard deviation of
3.87. As previously reported, the MCS and B-MAS correlated to a
small but significant degree, -.28, g,( .01. It is thus apparent

that the two measures tapped distinct behavioral domains.

The correlation between B-MAS and sex was .23 (g < .05),
indicating that females tended to score slightly higher on this

scale. Given the rather small amount (5%) of B-MAS variation

accountable to sex, data from males and females were pooled and

analyzed jointly.

II. M 'or ' in

A central purpose of this study was to investigate differences

between the hypothesized “coping groups'. A precondition for

59
comparing the four cell means for each particular dependent variable
was a significant MCS X B-HAS interaction. When a significant
interaction was not present, then only main effects could be
examined. Hypotheses relating to differential interpersonal
competence for the coping groups dealt with a) peer-ratings, b)

self-ratings, c) peer/self discrepancy scores, and d) rater’s range

SCOPOS e

A brief review of the hypotheses may be useful here. The
Repressor and Low-Anxious groups were posited as marking the poles
on a continuum of interpersonal competence. The Repressors were
anticipated to be rated by peers as less effective in the group,
while the Low-Anxious were expected to demonstrate the highest
levels of peer-rated interpersonal effectiveness. It was
additionally hypothesized that Repressors would tend to rate
themselves more positively than the three other groups across a
variety of variables and that their self-overratings would result in
the highest degree of peer/self discrepancy. The Low-Anxious were
expected to accurately perceive their own effective behavior with
the result of comparatively lower peer/self discrepancy scores.
Finally, with regard to magnitude of rater’s range, the more
guarded or defensive Repressors were expected to use the narrowest
range when rating peers’ conduct and the more disclosing Low-Anxious

were expected to use the widest range.

The two remaining groups, High-Anxious (HA) and Defensive
High-Anxious (DHA), were expected to perform at a point intermediate

to the Repressors (REP) and Low-Anxious (LA). Due to the

60
defensiveness variable’s anticipated salience the DHA were expected
to perform closer to the REP, and the HA closer to the LA. Thus for
all dependent variables the order of results will be LA ) HA ) DHA >
REP with respect to more effective and less defensive group
performance. Logically following from the above, subhypotheses
predicted that MCS defensiveness would, independent of level of
anxiety, predict negative peer-ratings and peer/self discrepancies

indicating self-overrating.

Qvgrview gf Findings Relgteg tg gaging group;

Among the relatively small number of significant results
involving MCS X B-MAS interactions, there was little support for the
predictions that individuals classified LA would be rated most
favorably and those classified REP would be classified most
negatively. Only in association with the derived variable I'rater’s
range' for Self-Acceptance (ARS 7th) did the Repressors even
marginally show the hypothesized greatest constriction in span of
scores alloted to others (see Table 10). while the Repressors did
use the most constricted range of all coping groups on ARS 7th, the
Low-Anxious did not have the broadest range, as had been
hypothesized. Rather, apart from the Repressors, the remaining
groups had approximately equal ranges. More will be said about

rater’s range when additional findings are discussed below.

while Repressors did not distinguish themselves as less

competent, there was notable support for viewing the Defensive

61
High-Anxigug (DHA) as functioning the least effectively of the four

groups. Of the seven interactions achieving significance (or
marginal significance), further examination of cell means revealed
DHA to be viewed by peers as lowest in: a) Other-Acceptance (ARO
7th), b) Insight, c) Like; and highest in d) Anxiety, and f)
Hostility. The poor peer-ratings shown by the DHA group were
actually 52; unexpected as this group had been predicted to function
most poorly in comparison to all but the REP group. Finally, both
DHA and REP showed equally high peer/self discrepancies for Anxiety,
with results further indicating that both groups were inclined to
self-underrating, relative to peers perceptions, on this variable.

These findings will be explicated below.

The coping group findings related to Aggigtz and Hgstilitz are

of special interest in view the relevant evidence and theory put
forward by other researchers. The Anxiety findings will be

discussed first.

Weinberger et al. (1979) and Asendorpf et al. (1982) had
predicted and subsequently found significant differences between
Repressors and Low-Anxious on various measures of anxiety. It is
important to recall that, pre-experimentally, members of each group
claimed low trait anxiety, a sin qua non of membership in either
group. In each study an anxiety-provoking word association task
was administered while both physiological and behavioral anxiety was

monitored. On measures of verbal interference and physiological

62
arousal, Ueinberger et al. found that the Repressors evidenced of
significantly blobs: levels of distress than Low-Anxious. Uhile
confirming Ueinberger et als’. physiological results, Asendorpf et
al. additionally rated subjects facial anxiety and here, too, found
Repressors, compared to Low-Anxious, to evidence significantly
higher anxiety. DHA and HA subjects both showed facial anxiety
intermediate to, and not significantly different from, the REP and

LA.

within the present study, peer-ratings may be thought of as an
approximation of facial anxiety; comparable in that both relate to
overtly observable signs of anxiety. However, the present findings
were not as hypothesized. Peers perceived the Defensive
High-Anxious (DHA) group, and not the REP, to be the most anxious.
The other groups were clustered closer together on Anxiety, with the
LA group, also counter to predictions, coming out marginally highest
of the three (Table 10). In relation to peer/self discrepancy on
Anxiety, the Repressors did show the expectedly strong tendency
toward self-underrating, but not more so than DHA. Both groups
were only slightly more discrepant than the LA. Paradoxically, the
High-Anxious group (that is, the low MCS and high B-MAS) showed the
smallest discrepancy, while at the same time being viewed by peers
as lgwg11_(marginally) on Anxiety. what may most clearly be
concluded from the present findings is that the Defensive
High-Anxious members were the only coping group to appear distinctly
more anxious to their peers, and DHA members also tended to

underrate the intensity of this affect.

63

weinberger et al. had compared the pre- and post-experimental
anxiety self-reports of their three coping groups he examined. The
anxiety inducing phrase-association task was viewed as producing the
following self-report changes: Repressors scores declined,
High-Anxious scores increased, while Low-Anxious were unchanged. It
was concluded that Repressors increase their defensiveness in the
face of threat, whereas the High-Anxious respond to there internal
arousal by intensified awareness and admission of trait anxiety.
The Low-Anxious maintained a stable view of themselves vis-a-vie

trait anxiety.

Relative to Ueinberger’s et als’. findings it is notable that
there was no interaction effect on SIRS self-ratings of Anxiety.
Rather, there was a simple linear relationship between pregroup
measured trait anxiety and within group self-rated anxiety (.33).
There was, thus, no evidence that these anxiety ratings varied as a
function of MCS defensiveness. Hence, in the 8th week of the
groups, Repressors and Low-Anxious reported lower anxiety while
High-Anxious and Defensive High-Anxious reported higher anxiety. It
seems reasonable to conclude that the group experience did not
differentially influence the present coping groups’ subjective

reports of anxiety.

It should be noted, however, that weinberger et al. reported
pre and post differences using the ggmg anxiety measure, whereas two
different measures were compared in the present case. Noted
earlier, an additional reason for not replicating the findings of

weinberger et al. is that their coping groups were selected from

64

much more extreme ranges of both the MOS defensiveness and trait
anxiety measures than was the present case (see Appendix D).
Finally it may be possible that weinberger’s differences did not
emerge in this study because the group experience was not a
sufficiently anxiety-provoking stimulus, or not sufficiently
stressful toward the end of the groups when self-rated anxiety was

assessed.

SIR Ho ili R te b f P

The results for Hostility were also interesting. It may be
recalled that the Hostility scale asks the rater to evaluate the
extent to which the rated member “reacts angrily toward others“ or
is “critical or disapproving toward others“. Although the MOS
defensiveness and peer-rated Hostility correlated only .09, there
was a significant MCS X B-ANX interaction leading to a scrutiny of
cell means. Both the Repressors and the Defensive High-Anxious
were rated higher in Hostility than the Low- Anxious and the
High-Anxious groups. The High-Anxious group was rated the lowest,
with the LA group marginally higher. This result had been predicted
in hypothesis 1b under the general “interpersonal ineffectiveness“
assumption regarding all higher MCS members. Despite this
prediction, the greater Hostility of the two high MCS groups appears
paradoxical in light of a good deal of evidence (Hillham, 1974:
Fishman, 1965; Palmer and Altrocci, I968; Heatherington and Urey.

1964; Conn and Crowne, 1964) that such persons are strongly

65

motivated to please others, avoid social disapproval, and inhibit

their own expressions of aggression.

The present picture is made more complex by the finding that
higher MCS defensiveness members also rated themsglvgs marginally
higher in Hostility (g 8 .17) and significantly higher on Anger
Acknowledgement (£.' .24). In itself the Anger Acknowledgement (AA)
result is not surprising; theoretically one would expect the
“approval motivated“ high MCS individual to deny a conscious intent
to withhold negative feelings. It seems extremely improbable,
however, that the Hostility scale items could be construed as
self-enhancing (see Appendix C). This would seem to point to the
conclusion that the higher AA self-ratings of the Repressors and
Defensive High-Anxious may accurately represent their perception
that they frequently £22: revealed negative feelings toward other

group members.

Thus, there is convergence between self and peer-ratings in
the depiction of the higher MCS members (particularly those who are
anxious) as more Hostile than low MCS members. As noted, the
literature depicts the higher MCS person as taking pains to avoid
the expression of anger or disapproval; even when provoked, as was
the case in a study conducted by Conn and Crowne (1964). How might
the present results be explained? One clear difference between
this and all other MCS studies bearing on “aggression“ is the length
of time over which subjects interacted. The SIRS, which includes
the Hostility scale, was completed after members had been in

contact for a minimum of 36 hours. With this duration of contact,

66

the higher MCS members may have been unable to suppress the negative

affects they struggle to contain.

This “build-up and eventual release“ hypothesis suggested here
has not been directly tested by other studies, but grounds for
speculation has been provided by Conn and Crowne’s finding (1964)
that it was only high MCS subjects who failed to show a decrease in
systolic blood pressure after direct expressions of anger had been
provoked and elicited. Related to this, the present findings may
indicate that once hostile behavior has been evoked, the high MCS

group member admits it via their self-rating.

The results under discussion relate to eighth week SIRS
ratings. As the other interpersonal measure, HIRS, contained an
“affiliativeness' dimension (ARO, acceptance v.s. rejection of
others) and one would expect confirming data related to “hostility“
from this measure, particularly ARO 7th. The correlations for both
peer and self-ratings for the MOS and ARO 7th ratings were small,
-.03 and .10, respectively. Peers rated higher MOS members
negligibly lower, as expected, on ARO 7th; and higher MCS was
associated with slightly nighgg,ARO self-ratings. Thus, the MCS and

self-rated Hostility positive linkage was not replicated for ARO.

However, a significant MCS/B-MAS interaction on peer’s ARO 7th
ratings allowed for examination of coping group cell means for
peer-ratings. The pattern of findings was perplexing. While as
noted, Repressors were rated high on Hostility, they were also
rated highggg in Other-Acceptance 7th, while the Defensive

High-Anxious were viewed more consistently: highest on Hostility and

67

Lowest on other-acceptance. The peer-rating results for Repressors

are difficult to explain.

Thus the findings are somewhat mixed or contradictory on the
Hostility/MCS connection. It is possible that the different
circumstances of the two measure’s administration might have had
some impact on the self-rating results. That is, subjects were
assured that the SIRS (containing the Hostility Scale) data would
not be shared with fellow members, whereas with HIRS (ARS & ARO)
they were aware that all ratings would be shared and discussed with
their groups. A tendency to defensive self-overrating may have been
more powerfully evoke for the higher MCS members when they knew that
ratings would be shared. This hypothesis would need to be examined

in future research.

In summary what may be concluded is that at higher values on
both predictor variables (MCS and B-ANX) there tends to be an
increase in peer’s ratings of hostility or aggression as shown on
both SIRS and HIRS ratings. The self-rating results were more
equivocal with only the SIRS scale suggesting that both high H08 and

B-ANX jointly predict higher Hostility self-ratings.
H i f r M f 'v n

Not withstanding our discussion thus far, when all dependent
measures are considered, there was only minimal evidence for
hzngthgglzgg coping group differences. There was slightly stronger

support for the hypothesis that the MOS defensiveness measure,

68

independent of level of trait anxiety, has some power in predicting
a decrement in group performance. For heuristic purposes
(maintaining continuity) these hypotheses may be thought of as
describing results of the form: LA + HA in comparison to REP f
DHA. There were significant or marginally significant
defensiveness main effects for ten of the variables. Of these, one
related to peer-ratings, three to self-ratings, four to peer/self

discrepancies, and two to rater’s range.

Thus, higher MCS defensiveness wealy but significantly
associated with higher peer-rated Anxiety: higher self-ratings on
Anger Acknowledgement and, as discussed above, on Hostility; and
lower self-rated Intimacy. Higher defensiveness was also linked to
gglf-gverrgtigg on Anger Acknowledgement and Other Acceptance (ARO
3rd) and gglf-ggggrratigg on Anxiety. Finally, increased
defensiveness predicted, rather strongly relative to the other
correlations, narrower Ueek 3 ranges of ratings for both
Self-Acceptance and Other-Acceptance (“rater’s range“ refers to the

span of scores the individual allots when rating self and others).

Nonsignificant correlational trends augmented the picture of
the defensive members being viewed by peers as slightly 1;};
effective interpersonally; revealing negative linkages with
Other-Acceptance (ARO) at weeks three and seven, Participation,
Intimacy, Insight, Anger Acknowledgement, Feedback Interest, Caring;
and positive linkages with peer assessments of Hostility,
Self-Criticism, and Anxiety. Thus, hypothesis 1b generally

received consistent, albeit correlationally weak, support.

69

with regard to self-ratings, hypothesis 2b had predicted
self-enhancing self-evaluations to accompany higher MCS scores.
This was the case of eight of fourteen linkages, if both significant
results and nonsignificant trends are included. For the more
behaviorally global ARO and ARS ratings, higher self-ratings and HOS
were positively associated (at a very low level) for each variable

at both the 3rd and 7th week administrations.

The findings were less consistent and more complex in relation
to self-ratings on the behaviorally-specific SIRS miniscales. As
predicted, MCS was positively linked with Anger Acknowledgement
(significantly) and nonsignificantly with Feedback Interest and
Group Investment. The surprising and marginally significant
ggsitivg association of NOS with self-rated Hostility has been

discussed above.

Also unexpected was the marginally significant negative link
with Intimacy. The higher HOS member, compared with low MCS
members, tends to perceive self as 1:33 willing to “disclose
intimate or personal information“. It should be noted that within
the interpersonal learning groups of this study, “here-and-now“
self-disclosure was consistently portrayed as potentially of value
for individuals and the group as a whole. Siven that high MCS
persons have been shown to respond or conform to perceived
situational demands (Strickland, 1965; Uillingham and Strickland,
1965), one might expect a positive association between MCS and
self-rated Intimacy. That the reverse was found, suggests that in

relation to self-disclosure something within the small group setting

70

led high MCS individuals to deviate from their more usual

self-overrating pattern.

One possible explanation is that after eight weeks of group
experience and feedback from group peers, a shift in their
self-perception occurred: that they more accurately perceived their
own smaller amount of self-disclosure (note that peers tended to
rate higher MCS members lower [5 8 -13]), albeit nonsignificantly,
on Intimacy). Another possibility is that from their own
perspective, higher MCS members simply did not view self-disclosure
as a “positive“ behavior, and so rated themselves lower. If the
SIRS, containing the Intimacy Scale, had been administered at the
beginning as well as the end of the group, both possibilities could
have been examined. In Summary, hypothesis 2b regarding MCS

members’ self-enhancing tendency received modest support.

The peer/self discrepancy data provide another means of
approaching the issue of “perceptual distortion“ expected to
accompany higher MCS defensiveness. As we have seen above MCS
generally predicts slightly higher self-ratings, and slightly lower
peer-ratings on favorably phrased measures. Thus, the discrepancy
findings were not surprising. The overall evidence related to
peer/self discrepancy supports hypothesis 3b, albeit with
relatively modest correlations (all L’s < -.32). when the four
significant and the more numerous nonsignificant findings are
jointly considered, higher MCS defensiveness was associated with
overly positive self-descriptions (comparative self-overrating) for

eleven of fourteen variables. As noted previously, over-rating and

71

MCS were most strongly, and significantly, linked for the following

variables: Anxiety, Feedback Interest, Anger Acknowledgement, and

Ueek three ARO.

The Anxiety discrepancy, as has been discussed above,
corresponds well to the prior research on which this study is based
in which the the two high MCS coping groups, REP and DHA, were
depicted as particularly prone to distort awareness of their own
level of psychOphysiological arousal (weinberger et al., 1979;
Asendorpf et al., 1983). The present data cannot address the issue
of “actual“ physiological arousal, but they indicate that, in
relation to anxiety, MCS tends to predict an incongruence between

subjective experience and external evaluations.

u§§ ind Rgtgr’s Rangg

“Range“, it may be recalled (see Method section) , refers to
the spread of scores individuals used in rating peers and self. In
this study range was computed for HIRS variables Self-Acceptance
(ARS 3rd and 7th) and Other-Acceptance (ARO 3rd and 7th); thus four
range scores were computed. The relationship between MCS
defensiveness and Rater’s Range was briefly touched on in the
section dealing with coping group differences. To review, there
was a significant MC X MAS interaction for one of these four range
measures. Hence, for week 7 ARS, of the four coping groups, only
the Repressors differed: alloting the narrowest range of scores.
Additional analysis reveals that more constricted ARS 7 range scores
were associated with higher sglf—rgtiggs on this same variable (£.'
-.22, p < .05). Further, lower ARS 7th range was correlated .21
with self-overrating (peer/self discrepancy) for ARS 7th. Combining
this evidence, it seems that for this variable the Repressors (high
MCS and low B-MAS) tended to use higher scores in rating both their

own and peers’ behavior.

while only one of four range variables revealed an interaction
effect, there was also a significant (;_- -.27, g_( .01) MCS
defensiveness main effect for two of the three remaining range
variables: Ueek 3 ARS and ARO. The MCS-range correlation was
negatively signed in all four instances; in each cases MCS was

associated with with narrower range.

72

73

As observed with ARS 7th, discussed above, for both Week 3 and
7 narrower range also predicted higher self-ratings on each
variable, (g’s 8 -.11 and -.49, respectively). This evidence
suggests that persons scoring higher on MCS tended to give
relatively inflated ARO ratings to all and but especially especially

to their self.

The finding that higher MCS links with smaller range, and that
smaller range also links with higher ratings of self and peers, fits
nicely with the empirically supported view that the higher MCS
individual is less inclined toward taking interpersonal risks.

They strive to gain acceptance and avoid disapproval from others
through pleasing behavior and compliance with perceived situational
demands (Jacobson, Berger, and Millham, 1970; Berger, 1971; Millham,
1974).

If the conscious or unconscious motivation of the high MCS
members was to be favorably perceived by others, to what extent were
they successful in accomplishing this? The answer from the present
date appears to be complex. Taking the SIRS “Like“ scale as a
global measure of peer acceptance, it may be noted that the MCS/Like
correlation was practically nil- -.05. As we have seen, however,
the Liking/MCS link was highly effected by the members’ level of
trait anxiety. The Defensive High-Anxious members received
significantly lower Liking ratings than all other groups, while the
Repressors were highest by a small margin. Add to this the finding
that ARS 7th data indicate that among the four coping groups the

Repressors used the narrowest range. Also of relevance is the

74

finding that narrower range linked inversely with higher Liking
scores for all four range measures (-.05, -.27, -.10, and -.16).
In sum, of the two “defensive“ groups, the Repressors apparently
showed the greatest caution in evaluating others and, perhaps

consequently, gig receive more peer approval.

One implication for future research that can be derived from
the foregoing discussion is that if the high MCS predicts
approval-seeking (or censure avoiding) behavior, the success of such
efforts would appear to be moderated by level of trait anxiety.

Uhat we have concluded here about the higher MCS individuals,
particularly those claiming low trait anxiety, seems quite similar
to Hurley’s (1986, p. 226) description of those who allot a

constricted range of scores:

“ [who] seem mainly oriented toward avoiding interpersonal tensions
through a nonassertive and overly deferential manner, while

inwardly harboring an inflated view of self.“

It would appear that rater’s range and MCS are to some degree
tapping the same construct, and this construct seems related to a
certain defensive avoidance of interpersonal risk and disapproval.
Research analyzing their areas of convergence and divergence seems

indicated.

The relationship between the trait anxiety measure (B-MAS),

independent of MOS, and the interpersonal measures was not a major

75

focus of this study, but several general findings appear worthy of
comment. Considering data from both the SIRS and HIRS, trait
anxiety predicted slightly lggg favorable peer-evaluations over the
majority of variables. with HIRS, persons scoring higher on the
B-MAS were viewed as less Other-Accepting (ARO) at both the 3rd and
7th week administrations (g 8 -.19 & -.18, not significant,
two-tailed). Thus, these persons tended to be viewed by peers as
showing less of the following than low B-MAS members: warmth,
helpfulness, gentleness, and acceptance of others. On the
Self-Acceptance (ARS) dimension of the HIRS, there was also a weak

trend for peers to rate higher anxiety (B-MAS) members lower.

The peer-based data from the SIRS miniscales tended be
consistent with HIRS results. As a weak general trend, B-MAS
predicted less effective functioning, from the perspective of both
peers and self. One of the B-MAS’s higher self-based linkages was
with Hostility (5,8 .21, not significant). It is notable, then that
both MCS defensiveness and B-MAS Anxiety positively predicted the

self-perception of “angry“ and “critical“ responding toward peers.

Not surprisingly, higher B-MAS was most strongly, and
significantly, associated with higher peer-rated Anxiety and
Self-Effacement and also with self-rated Anxiety and
Self-Effacement. Counter to the general trend toward poorer
interpersonal functioning, high B-MAS members were rated by peers as
marginally (;,8 .11) more willing to self-disclose (Intimacy) and,
interestingly, high B-MAS members also rated thgmgelvgg

nonsignificantly (L 8 .20) higher on Intimacy or self-disclosure.

76

Higher B-MAS members were also slightly more inclined to give a
wider range of scores when rating others and self. This may be seen
as reflecting a greater willingness to take risks or/and as
reflecting incautiousness and poorer interpersonal skills-- as the

lower peer-based ratings suggest.

In sum, higher trait anxiety, like higher MCS defensiveness
predicted poorer peer-judged within-group performance. However,
unlike MCS which is linked with more positive self-evaluations,

B-MAS predicts a tendency toward negative self-evaluations.

111- Samson

Because the “coping groups“ of this study differed
considerably, in terms of inclusion criteria, from those of previous
studies, all conclusions regarding coping groups must be considered
with some caution. For example, most of Repressors of this study
are much less extreme on the two predictor variables in comparison
with the Repressors of Ueinberger et al. (1979) and Asendorpf et al.
(1983). In those prior works small subgroups were selected from
sample populations of somewhat over 200; and placed into groups
based on their extreme high or low Marlowe-Crowne and trait anxiety
scores. In this study, all 78 group members were included in the
analysis and coping groups were formed by dividing at the median on
both predictor variables (see Appendix D). While it is unfortunate
that the present number of subjects did not allow for more analogous
coping groups, this study does put in sharper focus the relationship
of dependent and independent variables over the broad range of a

sample-- rather than simply the extreme scorers.

Mindful of the foregoing cautions, important findings were as
follows. Counter to hypotheses based on previous investigations,
the Repressors were g2; found to be the least interpersonally
effective of the four groups. On several peer-based ratings the
Repressors were, in fact, marginally (nonsignificantly) higher than
the three remaining groups. Interestingly, it was the Defensive
High-Anxious group that seemed to function most poorly. They were
rated lowest by peers on Other-Acceptance, Insight, and Like, and

highest on Hostility and Anxiety. Actually, the Defensive

77

78

High-Anxious groups’ poor performance was not unexpected in that
they were predicted be rated higher than two of these three other

groups (Repressors excluded).

The prediction that the Low-Anxious group would be rated mg};
favorably by peers was entirely unsupported although they were never
lowest among the four groups. The High-Anxious (low MCS) group
tended to a nonsignificicant degree to receive more positive

peer-ratings than the Low-Anxious group.

Only on one of the four “rater’s range“ measures did the
Repressors confirm the hypothesized greatest constriction in scores
alloted to others. However, their ratings of self and others tended
to be generally higher than those given by the three other coping
groups. On two additional range measures, there was a significant
mgin effect of MCS defensiveness. These findings are congruent with
the body of Marlowe-Crowne literature that portrays high MCS
individuals as interpersonally cautious and seeking to avoid
criticism or disapproval. In sum, the results related to range
indicate that high MCS individuals who glgg score high on trait
anxiety may not show the level of cautiousness which more clearly
characterizes the Repressors. The MCS and range findings suggest
that the two measures may tap the same or similar constructs.

Future empirical examination of the relationship between rater’s

range and the Marlowe-Crowne scale is obviously indicated.

As hypothesized, over a broad range of interpersonal variables
(including significant results and nonsignificant trends) MCS tended

to mildly predict poorer peer-rated group performance. Also as

79

expected, MCS generally linked with higher self-ratings; resulting
in peer/self discrepancies indicating relative gelf—gvggggtigg by

higher MCS members.

The literature on the coping groups, and the larger
Marlowe-Crowne literature, has focused particular attention on
behavioral differences in anxiety and hostility between high and low
MCS scorers (Strickland, 1977). The MCS has been discussed as a
predictor of conscious or unconscious suppression of both affects.
It was thus not surprising to find MCS main effects and coping group

differences in relation to anxiety and hostility.

On the Hostility miniscale, bgtg high MCS groups were rated
high by peers and, surprisingly, MCS and self-rated Hostility were
also positively and significantly correlated. These findings
suggest that while high MCS individuals may seek to avoid negative
interactions with peers, this was less successful by the eighth week
of the groups life when the SIRS was administered. The author knows
of no prior studies concerning level of MCS and changes in behavior
over gxtggggg interpersonal contact. The present findings seem to

suggest the value of such endeavors.

In relation to peer-rated Anxiety, only those high MCS members
who had also scored high on B-MAS trait anxiety were viewed as
significantly more anxious. The germinal studies on the coping
groups had found the Repressors to demonstrate the highest levels of
anxiety across both behavioral and physiological dimensions. In

the present investigation all groups, with the exception of the

80

Defensive High-Anxious, were rated approximately the same by peers

on Anxiety.

In future research employing trait measures of Anxiety, it may
be important to consider that among those who claim higher Anxiety,
some may appear overtly anxious while others will appear less so.
The MCS scale seems to predict the differential response. The
difference may, of course, be conditioned by the interpersonal
circumstances, in this instance, relatively extended and and

emotionally intimate contact.

In relation to peer/self-rating discrepancy on Anxiety, MCS
significantly predicted greater self-underrating. When the the
four coping groups were examined, the High-Anxious (low MCS) group
showed the closest degree of congruence between self and peer
perceptions of Anxiety, and was marginally different from the
remaining three groups, which, did not differ significantly. The
label “incongruent' which has been applied to the Repressors
vis-a-vie differences between self-report and other measures of
anxiety. The present results indicate that the “incongruent'

label fits the the Low-Anxious and Defensive High-Anxious as well as

it does the Repressors.

while the present results gave minimal support to coping group
hypotheses related to interpersonal behavior found in previous
research efforts, findings related to these groups were

sufficiently interesting and provocative to strongly indicate the

value of continued research.

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A

COURSE DESCRIPTION

81

Ihis course focuses on better identifying your wsys of releting to self end others.
This is maproschsd by working within sell grape (usuelly of S to 9 persms) thet
meet for w-minutee twice eech wed: plus Ill-hour long meetings nssr the terms 3rd
end 7th wesiterids. Us endsevor to build I: etmoephsre of concern end respect for
eech mmlber'e person-hood mile elso ettelpting to respond both constructively end
honestly to eech pesticipisnt“e bdieviors within s here-end—now context. our text-
book, Egsn's Intsgggrsonel #ivigg, provides e gensrel orientstion end else describes
the beelc skills essentiel or effective perticipetion. Eech mssber is recuired

to msintein e deteiled, orgenizsd. end tsp-to-dste eccotnt of her/his interectione,
feelings, end thou¢ots newt self and esch other grow member. This work consti-
tutes the principel heels of course gredee. weekly meetings of the entire cleee,
textbook beeed misses, end other sseigrmsnts provide isportsnt tools for erdisncing
the indiviwsl's usrensss of both consistencies end diecrqnm'lciee between self-
isprsssions end how others perceive mid resct to hie/her.

tech grow is led by one or two trsinsd '“fscilitetor(e).' Selected fru former cleee
mssbers for their string interest in, end good potsntiel for, reletlng constructively
to others, these individxel's hed st leeet one term of preperetion for this role.
Occseionelly, but less oftm, grotps ere led by grsmete students in clinicel pey-
chology or relsted fields. The instructor (Morley) monitors eech group's current
etetus, potsntisl problems, end progress. Over two-thirds of ell enrolleee heve
reted their experience in this comes st closer to sxcggtionelly m then to gem,
ss calpered with their other ecu courses inside end outside of the Oepertmsnt of
Psychology on e scele there figtimelly % e 1, belg everggg - S, evergg - 5,
move every: - 1, mid exggtionelly Qo_d - . It hes been offered here for sod:
term of the remiss seed-lo yeer for 15 yeers.

Because grow fscilitstors’ cleee echsmlss often remsin unsettled mtil the new

term eterts, scheduling poses s speciel problem. Our smell grows“ ectuel esetlng

times umrslly differ frcl the times steted (except for Uednsedey meetings of the entire
cleee) in fall's Scherhne of Courses. Smell Grow meeting times ere pinned in our

first cleee meetings to fit more other cumitmsnte, mile msxlmizing the intervel
between these weekly sessions. Students ere straagly sdvieed to ettend the term'e

initiel schedfled cleee meeting to insure their plecsmsnt in e suiteble grow. Attendsnce
st 9;; cleee meetings is r end eny desencs not explicitly mproved by the
Instructor is likely to erse y inflwmnoe the grsds. -

This course is not designed es s personel comseling mid/or psychotherepy emerisncs.
Brows for those purposes ere often sveilmnle st 1450's Student Counseling Center.

Our goel is to m your sslf-kmlsdge, so unlike some 'Encomter Grows“, we
ettsspt to cultivete s sense of csring mid concern for eech person, rether then
providing s stsge for thouQItlsse 'confrontetions." Hills geminsly nsgstive outcomes
se. very rere, grow meters will inevitdely experience some conflicts end disegresmsnts
thet msy be scconpsnied by eruietise end feelings of disco-fort or unhepMnese.

Tworery ego-bruises tend to be viewed so either chellenglng or demsging end persaie
with little reserve strength for coping with those emsriencee es- beet sdvieed

to enroll in more inersonsl cmerses.

Specs in PS'f eoo S-l is gsnsrslly sveilmle to Jmiors end seniors, irre tive

of mejor, end to edvencsd PS! swimmer-u, “W the Instructor's (John Hurley, 355-8615
or 106 Side Hell) permissia: is remired. Premirollmsnt is room-fled, but msy not

h was

APPENDIX B

MARLOUE-CROMNE SCALE (MCS)
and

BENDIG MANIFEST ANXIETY SCALE (B-MAS)

(MCS items have been circled)

82

NW

 

Listed below are a number of statements concerning personal attitudes and traits.
Read each item and decide whether the statement is true or false as it pertains

to you personally.

‘ d d
N —e o
s s e

E?

r F 25.
r @215.
r r 27.
CD r 28.
r F 29.

Encircle T or F in left margin.

before voting I thoroughly investigate the qualifications of all the candidates.
I never hesitate to go out of my way to help someone in trouble.

I work under a great deal of tension.

It is sometimes hard for me to go on with my work if 1 am not encouraged.
I have never intensely disliked anyone.

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

I am certainly lacking in self-confidence.

On occasion i have had doubts about my ability to succeed in life.

I sometimes feel resentful when I don't get my way.

I am happy most of the time.

I am always careful about my manner of dress.

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

I certainly feel useless at times.

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

' I frequently find myself worrying about something.

I have periods of such great restlessness that I cannot sit long in a chair.

On a few occasions. I have given up doing something because I thought too
little of my ability.

1 like to gossip at times.
I believe I am no more nervous than most others.
Life is a strain for me much of the time.

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

I am usually calm and not easily upset.

No matter who I'm talking to, I'm always a good listener.

I can remember “playing sick“ to get out of something.

I am more sensitive than most other people.

There have been occasions when I took advantage of someone.

I cannot keep my mind on one thing.

I'm always willing to admit it when I make a mistake.

I feel anxiety about something or somebody almost all the time.

86-6 ~ ~ ~6®~ ~ @-@

C8) 888886 8636

- came)” an

30.
3|.
32.

33.
34 .
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.

40.
4!.
42.
43.
44.

45.
46.

47.
4B.
49.
50.
SI.
52.

53.

83

I always try to practice what I preach.

I am inclined to take things hard.

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

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

I am not unusually self-conscious.

Hhen I don't know something I don't at all mind «hitting it.

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

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

There have been occasions when I felt like smashing things.

I have sometimes felt that difficulties were piling up so high that I
could not overcome them.
I would never think of letting someone else be punished for my wrongdoings.

At times I think I am no good at all.

I never resent being asked to return a favor.

I am a high-strung person. .

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

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

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

I have almost never felt the urge to tell someone off.

I shrink from facing a crisis or difficulty.

I as sometimes irritated by people who ask favors of me.

I have never felt that I was punished without cause.

I sometimes feel that I am about to go to pieces.

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

deserved.
I never deliberately said something that hurt someone's feelings.

APPENDIX C

GROUP INTERPERSONAL RATING SCALES (SIRS)

(Rating form and item sets comprising scales)

84

 

I 2 3 If 5
' Almost Never '6'in Occasiorislly'r Sometimes "1 Often " Almost Always —'
Characteristic Characteristic Characteristic Characteristic Characteristic

 

For each statement below write in the number (i. 2. 3. 4 or 5)
indicating how well the desmption W the within-
group behavior of the person you are rating. Consider

each item one at a time. rating all members before moving to
the next item. To make it easier to change your mind about a
rating. please use a pencil.

 

Participates actively in the group.

 

Is tense or anxious in the group.

 

Discloses intimate or personal thoughts. feelings or experiences.

 

Takes the group seriously.

 

Makes an effort to try to understand how own behavior affects.
or is experienced by. others.

 

Critical or disapproving of others. in either subtle or obvious ways.

 

Acts apologetic about own behavior or way of being in the group.

 

Offers others emotional support and acceptance.

 

If angry, would [51 let others how about it until later. if at all.

 

Communicates an insi htful understanding of the reasons behind own
feelings and own reac ions toward others.

 

Is relaxed in the group.

 

Reveals personal feel s and thoughts that could be uncomfortable
or anxie y produciing to slit about.

 

Seems self-accepting--does not discount self or put self dowi.

 

Sits quietly. participates little.

 

Reacts angrily. in either subtle or obvious ways.

 

Shows an interest in hearing perceptions about. or reactions to. own
ways of interacting in the group.

 

If feeling irritated with someone. would mm let that person Mow.

 

Personally uninvested in. or indifferent toward. the group.

 

Communicates a clear or insightful understanding of self-dome
se we

 

3'1"” Up personal issues or feelings that would probably be difficult
for anyone to bring up.

 

Is nervous or edgy in the group.

 

Expresses caring and concern.

 

I like this person.

 

I have found this person annoying or difficult to be with.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SIRS Scales

PARTICIPATION
Participates actively in the group.
Sits quietly, participates little.
INTIMACY
Discloses intimate or personal thoughts, feelings or experiences.

Reveal personal feelings of thought that could be uncomfortable
or anxiety producing to talk about.

Brings up personal issues or feelings that would probably be
difficult for anyone to bring up.

INSIGHT

Communicates a clear or insightful understanding of self--knows
self well. .

Communicates a clear or Insightful understanding of own feelings
and own reactions toward others.

ANGER ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

If angry, would 32; let others know about it until later,
if at all.

If feeling irritated with someone, would sggn let that person
know.

FEEDBACK INTEREST

Makes an effort to try to understand how own behavior affects or
is experienced by others.

Shows an interest in hearing perceptions about, or reactions to,
own ways of interacting in the group.

CARINS
Offers others emotional support and acceptance.
Expresses caring and concern.

SROUP INVESTMENT
Takes the group seriously.

Personally uninvested in, or indifferent toward, the group.

85

86

HOSTILITY

Critical or disapproving of others, in either subtle or obvious
ways.

Reacts angrily, in either subtle or obvious ways.
SELF-EFFACEMENT

Acts apologetic about own behavior.

Seems self-accepting--does not discount self or put self down.
ANXIETY

Is tense or anxious in the group.

Is relaxed in the group.

Is nervous or edgy in the group.
LIKINS

I like this person.

I have found this person annoying or difficult to be with.

APPENDIX D

MCS AND B-MAS MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS, AND SEX

COMPOSITION OF THE FOUR COPING GROUPS

87

TABLE D-I

its and B-itAS lines and Standard Deviations, and
Sex Cumpositioe of the Four
Coping Sroups (H 8 78) I

 

E ms 552!

14... 5.0. Mean 5.11. If er

Repressors 17.22 3.37 5.09 2.09 11 12
DefeasiveHigh-Anxious 15.42 2.41 11.90 2.81 9 1o
Him-Anxious 8.42 2.89 12.05 2.07 5 14
Lee-Anxious 8.47 2.29 4.53 1.77 12 5

 

I Divided by sedian split:
141:5 scores 1 through 12 8 Lee IRIS; 13 through 26 8 High HCS
881448 scores 0 through 8 8 Ln: HAS; 9 through 20 8 High D-ittS

APPENDIX E

CORRELATIONS BETWEEN GIRS VARIABLES

88

Table E-I

Correlations Between SIRS variables: Self-Ratings
and Peer-Ratings (N 8 78) x

 

 

PEER-RATINGS
PAR INT INS AA FBI CAR GA HOS SE ANX LIK

 

Particip. 72 63 60 74 52 38 53 30 ~34 ~38 38
S Intimacy 31 70 48 66 55 32 50 22 ~04 02 34
E Insight 27 22 41 49 69 57 63 ~17 ~43 ~51 64
F Anger Ack. 43 01 30 48 38 16 37 44 ~44 ~18 29
- Feedback Int. 14 32 25 19 34 64 74 ~29 ~14 ~32 61
2 Caring 24 08 18 01 14 67 63 ~53 ~14 ~47 68
I Group Attract. 39 03 10 30 13 28 58 ~30 ~22 ~31 74
: Hostility 05 08 ~03 24 ~10 43 ~13 52 ~11 24 ~45
S Self-Efface. ~35 08 ~28 ~48 ~05 ~23 ~37 10 68 53 ~28

Anxiety ~29 15 ~32 ~28 ~25 ~36 ~15 18 51 60 ~43

 

a Redundancies in the matrix have been eliminated.
Right of diagonal 8 correlations between scales based on peer-ratings.
Left of diagonal 8 correlations between scales based on self-ratings.
Diagonal 8 correlations between self and peer-ratings on same-named scales.

APPENDIX F

CORRELATII'NS BETWEEN HIRS VARIABLES

Correlations Between HIRS Variables (N 8 78) x

89

Table F-l

 

 

 

 

A A A A A A A A A A A A
R R R R R R R R R R R R
S S O O S S O O S O S O
3 3 3 3 7 7 7 7 3 3 7 7
P S P S P S P S R R R R

ARS 3P 4

ARS 3S ++ 63

ARO SP 22 ~01

ARO 38 ~07 15 50

ARS 7P 80 49 29 ~04

ARS 7S 64 52 16 12 67

ARO 7P 14 ~04 70 34 40 22

ARO 78 ~19 ~14 47 67 ~03 19 50

ARS 3R +++ 13 ~11 ~08 ~40 18 ~02 ~07 ~38

ARO SR 02 ~10 ~36 ~50 01 ~10 ~31 ~46 62

ARS 7R ~05 ~08 ~04 ~14 ~06 ~22 ~17 ~29 54 41

ARO 7R 08 08 ~25 ~31 ~03 ~21 ~33 ~55 4O 46 63

* Redundancies in the matrix have been eliminated

+4:
+++

P 8 peer-rating
S 8 self-rating
R 8 range score

APPENDIX G

RAH DATA TABLE

90

SAMPLE OF VARIABLE ABBREVIATIONS USED IN RAH DATA TABLE 8 +

MCS

ARSSP

ARO7S

ARO7R

PAR

AA

PARBS

ANXBS

Marlowe-Crowne Scale

Bendig Manifest Anxiety Scale
ARS, week three, peer-rating

ARO, week seven, self-rating

ARO, week seven, rater’s range
Participation, peer-rating

Anger Acknowledgment, peer-rating
Participation, self-rating

Anxiety, self-rating

x Discrepancy scores are not shown but may be recalculated

from the data.

+ For “SEX“ variable, 0 8 male and 1 8 female

AH”.

91

0000000000000OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOQOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOQQQQ900000O0000000
OOFI800"'8OflOOHNOUOCIV"Q'OOOGHOI'C'FNOV8NCO'C'FOFOO'HHN“F.0.BHON8OI"ONI‘I ::.O:OI
'vflo- ”N o-W «. .”fl' (gm

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOODOOOOOOOO

..............................................................................

OHHNNF:OOOFDONO'CHfiQNHOH-O'=UFDFO’OOOFFDFOFCHOHO'OOOOIHNfiHHORH'flOO¢OOOO"'QOK-

AROTP AISJI ARGO. ARSTI

4'57,

130?:

LISTS

SEX ARSJS SROGS MCS IAN! ARSS' IROJ'

GROUP

CLIENfs

nun-""6 fgw we've- -“--"-N on.“ 'fiop-m-N--- “n "on M. n" 08.8"“-.. c-W "no-em,

OOO00000OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 000000000000OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO0000000

flflflhfl‘"I8'flfl"ON'."N.OFF8H8‘DNOflHVIOINNVNCIFOOOFCFNOF.FOVOOflOOFNO’OflOOfl'FOF’
”N ”no- m-e8 'o- m-m-p-o-r «'flm- e8“ He-wrfififlfio-v-F'fl

0000000000000000000O00°00OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

nan-088mmuownn80mwenmemmmvpm8m8vumOOOe nmm8mnummmmmnnonoomOmnnmmono8woemoo—mm—
8on888888nmn8nnnn n8u88 888888 «anu88 8« «a «8n88888u ”a 88 «unannnnuunnnnnn888 8

”NUO'CHUDFnflNOfl'VOVIDOOFFCCO'ONOQFNHNCCVQO “Na-U OO..'*O.U.UINNFF".'ISI‘OFOH6.00000
NNNflflNfl"NNNflNNNNNNNNNNNN" NNNN NNNNNN'NNN NNNNMONNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN"NHNNNHNNHONN

”NOB-HQNOCNGGOONOON'GHOOC'QNONOCCV.NONOCCCC'FFCHIFF'CVONONCCOHCDNCQ'NOO'nOF".

IFNFHOHOHGOGIGHOCDINCOCFFV'QHOF.CNVOCOCO"NNNOONHOOOOC'U'C'HOQNFFI’...'O'HHOOO

I I U I D I O 0 O . O O O O O O I eeeee
C ':Nfl' OU'O'NNC.FF “NUDOCN;...U| O'F'C...'N°O°..COQFN"OF."'fl.'NV OON'IDOFU'HUINF '- VNIN'TO
'NHNNNNN 'NN'NNNNN"NNNNNN"NNNN'NNN’N'NNNNN'N'NNNNN" NHN'NNNN'N'N'N'NN'N' NNNNNNN

00000000000000000009000000090009000OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO00000000000000OOOOOOO

sesae aassessseeasaaeeeeeseassss
'OF’NF"nfl"06"“’0'“O'ONOOF'NnN‘OHHnNOFNN' " “804'! .‘a‘n.".'F'°u.' 'Nn"'m0""@0

.N
NDNNNNNN'HHNH' NNNHNNNNNNNNNNNH"NNNNN'NN 'NHNNNNNNNNNNNHNNNNNN'N NNNNNNHNNHNNN

OOOOOOOOOO000000000000000000000000°OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

sssssss O a O O O s e e s a 4 s
noovpvp«00808OneN8ppou88OOn mumpump-punQOOOO«mnmomn00o 900880888888p888oompo
«unnunnn8naunnnnnn88«n8nnnnunnnnnnuu8unuunuflnno8nnnnnflu «nuuu8u8flnnn8n8nnunnnn

INF OGIHNFONGOINDFIDIOUQCONCVONFONN'O'W'NOCWN'NWOQ“C. .OF'ONNFCCII'. .' COBB.“

-phmoo8ammunmmnascraneomp8nomq.fifi;dfiflhfl«."..,u-.,uh°¢hnnnnOon‘h’6‘ F. --.-6-
«8nnuunn8unuun8uunununn nunnnnuuu-«uuuu8nnnfl8 'NNNNNNNNNNNNNNHN'NNNN"gNNgggggggfl:

Nonn00ONGOOOOflOflhIGOUOOOQQCIOQF0"O'OOOCDOCOOONOHOOO'08088flh8ONNOF888nn000800.

Oflflfl8.flmvfldhdv8NODOflDOCDOOOFOmfl'OD'NFONINON. acumen-mm u«"°'
«8n8nnnn88888nnu «~88nm8unmunmu8man8 «”8 8nn88.n«8 nm8umn3««:3.29'332'3.333333332

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOQOOQOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO000000000000000OOOO0000000

I
.2N' CUNUOF NFIONFF.’Cflflfle.g.“::.fl“:22.N"°N2- N..:N: :..FIIN°2.N.:HOOFF N' 8‘ IN : HOaflafl

OO0000000OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

..,,,,, ,,_,. ....._..9000000000000oooooooooooooooooooo

ONOFON'OFFDHOUN’OU 08o. 0N80n0n08ppp8 FF"'
«nunannunuflun«8unuflflnunanunnnuu «unnnusgaufig'°”8°“°§333~333§3332”SRESRSSRKES98

OOO
. OOOOOOOO00000090090000000000000OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

NOHFDOVOI*.OOF'IN8'.N0fl mmennmvmmum
«
n8n8mnnnm888umn8mmm8muunmmnmum ««-«RSS”"°"'"”’3!3823832332:28223888393223:82:8

as°eoos°°°aa°°°°°a .eo ass a e as
-' '_' COO- -°°-O'O--°°;°°°°°;;;°°'°°°°°°000;;OO;;;;OOO;;;OOO;;;;

F'- e- mes-m- e-

0......
ease-sssessseeseeaasesoeeeoooeesoo I sees
seess

_____ __._ 0------"
.-'"----'NNNNNNHNN::9fl0flfl.UUOFFFFf; :0; :2322

I O O I . O O . . O I O
NH. ONOO C ISUF ‘ GONOO'NN
"V' 'VNNNNNNNNN

O'NHQOF. '
mmmmmemm800033h‘°°'3:93:3

m-e-m-e-o-Pv-wp-m-m-m-

7..

OF.
"NO

GIPAYT LIKE HOSYtL SELFEF FAQ'S lNTlI'S INSIOS

CAQINB

IN”.

6300' SEX PAI INS! ll FIX

CLIENT:

92

NNFFFOFNNNOOFONOOOFNNFO0FOOFNOFONOFOFFFONOOFOONONNNNOONFNONFFNFFFOOONNNOOOHHHH

'NNNNNNN'NNNNNCNCNNNC 'NNCNCNNCN'CNNCNCNCNNNNNNNNCNNC CNNNNN'NNNNNNNNC NC N CNNNNC N

NNFFFOFNHNOOFOHOOOFNNFNNFOOF”OFONOFOFFFONOOFOONONNNNOONFNONFFNFFFOOOHHHOOQHNNH

'NNNNNNN'NNNNNCNC NNNC 'NN'NCNNC N'CNNC NC NCNNNNNNNNCNNC CNNNNN'NNNNNNNN C NCN C IINNNC N

0000'OOOOOOOOOOOOO‘GOOOOOOOOOO‘OOOOCNOOOOOOOGOO“OODOOO’OOOODOIGOOQOO“OOOOOOOmn

I C I I O O O l I I uuuuuuu

CNCCNCNNNNCCCNNCNNNNCNNNNNCCCNNCCCNNNCCNNNNNNCCNNNNCNC CCCCNNCNNCNNCDNNNCDNNCNC

F C NNNNNNNOCNNNNNFNNCCONNCC.NNNCNONWONNNNCONONNNNNNCOOCNNNNOOO'OCONNU'NF N

' NN;NNN'NNN"CNN"NNNNNNNNN'CNC'N'NNCNNN'NNNN'NNNNNNN'N"CN'N'NNNC C 'NNNC " "NNN" N

NNNNNONFOCNCO-ONNFNNNCNCONNNNO"CON'NONNCF'NNNNNCCNNNCCNCNCNNONNON'NC NINIINNOIIN'IF

8NN'NN8NN8'N'NN'8N'NNNNNNN'N’N'NNNNC'N'NNNN“'NN’NN'NNN'N8'N88'NNNCNN'8N'N888N8

NC NN'CN C -“NNCNC 'CNONNFFOF'NCNNNN’NNONNNNN"NONNOFNC IICNONNNFNNNNNONNN" 8 NF GONNN

NNCNCCCNNNNCCNNCCNNNNNNNCNCNCNNNCNNNCNCNCNNCCCCCCNCCCNNNCCNNCNCNN'NCNCNCNC CC C C

N" ON'CCNONNONNNOOONNFNN'NFNC NONOFNCMOCNNFONNNOONFFNNC 'OC 'NFF CONN. "' C C NNOFF I

NCNCCCCNNNNCCNCNCNNNNNNCCNCNNNNCCNNCNNCNCCNCCCCNNCNCCCCNCCNCCNCNC 'NCNC NC CC CC Cfl

88080000.088.880.00.0.«nu8-nvvnonnuhns0'008800808nn8n8ouuonnvcan—o..—onpagan-n
NNNCHNCNNCCCCNNCNNNNNNNCCNCNCNNNNNNCCN‘NNCNCNNCNCNNCCNNNHCNNNNNNNNNCNflN€NCNCNN

aconno8on8oncouhONO8uon88v0080608080009888nou088808uuo8u008n8nhnhcanon8arc-owe

' NC NC NNN'NN" NNNNNNNNC "NNNNCNNNNNNN'NNNNNNNNNNNC NC NNNC NN" NNNNN'NNN" C NNN HNNNNH 8'

0.00.0008COO8OGOC'FO'INOOCCNCCCFCNCCNNNF88OCNFNNBDO8C8HGOFOOOIOonNOOCInand8vlm

NNCNNNNNNNNNC NNNC NNNNNNNNNCNNNNNNNNNNNCNCCNCNNCNCNNC C NNNC CNNNNC NNNNC N“ N C C NC Nflfl

«008nnn8huo8ooc«OI-80.0800‘80808Oweshhhv8808oooovonhvvovn8v8.8cacao-awnnn-nnvo

NNC NC CNN"NNNNNNNNC'NNICNNNNNNCC'CCNNN'NNNCN'NNNCNCNNNC N'NNNNNN'NNC ':NC "NN C C NNC'C N

punucngp.gupnn.°‘.'-.np gnu-flggpugunnwup'ompcufivnflw'flCNOF “.CNO'ONOOFNFN on ONNC

I '\v“"‘-' -------- "VI-I‘Cf‘v‘7: vvvvvvvvvvv ‘V—‘V " vvvvvvvvvvvvv —"-'C-:I- uuuuuuu I- ----- -.\ ‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘ .1

NNNNNOONC C CCNNCONNF: “NFFNCN'ONNNNWNNCONNNNNCFWCNOCNNCONFONINO' ' 'NUNF O

’: NC NNNNNNNNN C NNC NNNNNNNNNNC NNNNNNC NNNNNNNNNNNNC NNNNNC NNNNNNNNNNNN " N C NNN C C "N C N N

FOF NC C .NFFNC NN' O'NNCOONNFOCNNONNNNCFONNN'FNNC “ONCONC N'ON'NNF OF "N'FONO ' OOONOO

N'CNCCNN'NNNNNCNCN'NNNNCCNCCNC'NNCNN'NNNCCNN'NCNCCNCCN'NNCNNN'NNCNNCCN" CCNNNC N

o-o-o--ooo~ooooo--oooo--__~oo-ooo_; Hooooooooo-u-o-oooo---oo--oo----ooo-._-- -ooo~--

'w 0'" I'm 00'-.-

CCC'NNNNNNNNNNNONOOOFFFFFNNNNNNNOONOOOOC’CCCCNNNNNNNNNNNNONNNNOOOOFFFFFFFOOOGC

NW.- OI-C-v-u- CI”.- .8.- 'wwc-wv-c-u-o-c-O-vc-v-

O O I O C O O I O O O
NNCNNNOCNNF
'08..-.-

 

‘- I‘ ICC—l I‘I ;‘:‘vu-l‘v:::fiI-'—U" ..«~"n-

FBIOS CARINGOS GIPATTOS HOSTILOS SELFEFOS ANXOS

GROUP SEX LAOS

CLIENYI

93

06h000fl00h0006.hOHOOOFOOGOOOOOOOF 00°F” OflbhflflflhHHOOHOOHOOOOOHOHHOHHOflhflbafi

MN"Nfl"flfl"*.'WM"N"Nfl"NVW «N'H"N"H"NNN"'HNNflfl'flNNflNN"NGV'NN

«mmwooommmmmmmomnmwwooo 000....

"0"'HNN'HW'HHH””H'MMHHN'W'N'"0'HMWWQ'NN-MMON'M'ONN'N'fl“"'flllfl" 'flflflfl

O...0.0000.0.....OO..O0.0.00.000..O°.OO.°°..O....OOO..OOOG 36‘ 300.000

I O O O O O O I O C O C C I I D O 0 O O O I O I O O I I O 0 I O O I O O O O O O l O O C O

M'Nflfl'flfl"fl'fl""'N"“'Nfl"fl'fl'flfl"m'flm'fl'fl'flfl'H'NN"-"N"'HNHNN'U'VHNVN' NH“

 

QOOOO0.00CO0.00.0000.0°.OO...O°°O..OO..°.°.°..0000000000.0.0...000000000000000

CV“. '0'"'IQHOMVCQQCCCQQ'HV'Q'C'“.'.'.V.VMVWQOV COVVN'B'QMDHHNQIDII'II' ll

0.0900.00°00°...0.000.00..OO0.000°...O°°°0.0000GOOOOO...I000000009000O.nucmmon

'Nfl" Q.CNOMVO'MIVVHVMQO'VMVWQWCMHCCHVCVMD'WQ.HGMQVNOHQ "' flflfl

ODOOflaanOOOOOOOO0OOOOaOaCOOODOOIOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO0.000000DOOQ oooouooooooonaoo
nvnuvvowunvvvvvac10v«uvnnnvnvnooocvvnvvvvaovnvvvvnavouvnvuonnvnvnavcncuvouvvnn

o»canoncoo.ooaooooooanonooouoo-ooooooooooooocon.ooaoucaonaonoooaooononoooooono
vnnvvnvnvnonvnncoannnnuvnoavvv«uuflvuuvuuvwnnunuflannvuuvvnvuuonnncnccan“snuunnn

0.0. 0.0000,. .m"°°°°.. “on.” ”mMOOIIOMOOOOOOO “MOIOOMOOOOOOOOIO

on- 0:-0-0- v---” 'OCICI .0- www www.-

'- " "'. NM.WW»‘F......W°OO""”WM ”MOMODCUUCFFF 2: t: 2....

v-9---v’-ukuwc-www-wcnvww ”Clo-v- CDC-CI-.-

-~~--°'~-*333~-33~~'~ =9 3 .3399998'8:.:::“899»:::::2:.2 33399399 ~-'°'~:e::-

""2-"""-

 

LIST OF REFERENCES

LIST OF REFERENCES

Allaman J.D., Joyce, C. S. & Crandell, V. C. (1972). The
anatacedents of social desirability response tendencies

in children and young adults. Child Development,
43,1135-1160.

Asendorpf, J. B. & Scherer, K. R. (1983). The discrepant
Repressors Differentiation between low Anxiety, high
anxiety, and repression of anxiety by autonomic-
facial- verbal patterns of behavior. Journal of
P r nali ' P h l , 45, 1334-1346.

Bendig, A. U. (1956). The development of a short form of
the Manifest Anxiety Scale. Jo r al of ons ltin
P hol , 20, 384.

Bruner, J. S. & Postman, L. (1947). Emotional selectivity

in perception and reaction. Journal of Pergonglitz, 16,
69.7? e

Bruner, J. S. & Postman, L. (1947). Tension and tension
release as organizing factors in perception. Jogrnal of

A n m i l P l , 15, 300-303.
Buck. R- (1978>- W. New York:
wiley.

Buck, R., Miller, R.E., & Caul, w. F. (1974). Sex,
personality, and physiological variables in the
communicaion of affect via facial expression. Journal

9f Pgrggngligz and §gcial Egzcholggz, 30, 587-596.

Byrne, D. (1961). The repression-senisitization scale:
Rationale, reliability, and validity. Jggrnal of

Pgrggggligz, 29, 596-609.

Byrne, D. (1964). Repression-sensitization as a dimension
of personality. In B.A. Maher (Ed.), Prgggggg in
x ri n li r s rch (Vol . New York:
Academic Press.

Cohen J. & Cohen P. (1983). Appligg muligple rggression/
rr l i n a i f r th eh vioral ien e , Lawrence

Erlbaum Associates, New Jersey.

Conn, L. K. and Crowne, D. P. (1964) Instigation of
aggression, emotional arousal, and defensive emulation.

Jggrngl 9f Pgrggnglitz, 32, 163-179.

94

95

Crowne, D. & Marlowe, D. (1960) A new scale of social desirability
independent of social psychopathology. Jo rnal f on ultin
h lo 4 349- 4

Crowne, D. & Marlowe, D. (1964) Th; apprgval motive: §tgdie§ in
gvalugtivg dgpgndencg. New York: Uiley.

Crowne, D. P. (1979). Th; gxpgrimental studx,of
pgrggnalitz. Hillsdale, New Jersey: L. A, Erlbaum
Associates.

Dion, K. K. & Dion, K. L. (1978). Defensiveness,
Intimacy, and Heterosexual Attraction. Journal of

Rggggrch in Pgrggngligz, 12, 479-487.

Doster, J. A. (1975). Individual differences affecting
interviwee expectancies and perceptions of

self-disclosure. r l f un lin Ps chol ,
22’ 3, 192-198e

Duval, S., & wicklund, R. A. (1972). A tngorz gt objgggive
self-gwgrengsg. New York: Academic Press.

Evans, R. G. (1982). Clinical relevance of the Marlowe-
Crowne scale: A review and recommendations. Jgurnal gf

Pgrggnglitz Aggegsmeng, 46, 4.

Fishman, C. 8. (1965). Need for approval and the
expression of aggression under varying conditions of
frustration. r f r 't n ' l

Flores, N. (1986). Congruity and differences of self and peer
based ratings of interpersonal behavior in small groups.
Unpublished master’s thesis. Michigan State UniversitY.
East Lanisng, MI.

Freud, A. (1946). Thg‘ggg 9nd the mgghgniggg 9f gefgnsg.

New York: International Univeristies Press.

Freud, S. (1948). Inhipigign, gzmptgmg 9nd gnxietz. London:

Hogarth Press.

Goldiamond, I. (1958). Indicators of perception:
Subliminal perception, subception, unconscious
perception: An analysis of psychophsical indicator

methodology. szgnglggicg! Byllgtig, 55, 373-411.
Hartman, H. (1958). h l h r le f ada tati n.

International Universities Press, Inc. New York.

Holroyed, K. (1972). Repression-sensitization,
Marlowe-Crowne defensiveness, and perceptual defense.

Reprinted from Proceedings, ficth Anngal Convgntign, APA.

 

 

96

Hurley, J. R. (1976a). Helpful behaviors in groups of
mental health professionals and undergraduates.

Ingerngtigngl Jggrngl gf §rggp szghgtherapz, 26,
173-189.

Hurley, J. R. (1980). Two interpersonal dimensions relevant
two group and family therapy. In L. R. Uolberg & M. L.
Aronson (Eds.), r u famil th ra 1980. New York:
Brunner/Mazel. Pp. 65-78.

Hurley, J. R. (1986). Interpersonal behavior, range of

ratings, and personal security. Pszchglogical Reporgg,
59, 219-228.

Jacobson, L. I. & Ford, L. H. (1966). Need for approval,
defensive denial, and sensitivity to cultural sterotypes.
n P r n li , 34, 596-609.

Lefcourt H. M. (1969). Need for approval and threatened
negative evaluation as determinants of expressiveness in
a projective test. 0 rnal of on ultin an Clinical

Pszchglggz, 33, 96-102.

McCrae, R. R. & Costa, P. T. (1983). Social desirability
scales: more substance than style. Jggrngl gf

angglting gng Qliniggl szchglggz, 51, 6, 882-888.
Myers, A. U. (1985). F f elf-di l s r n l te

in r er l vari le rel t t ef n ivenes .
Unpublished master’s thesis, Michigan State University

East Lansing, MI
Nunally, J. C. (1978). szgngggtrig thgorz. McGraw Hill,

New York.

Orlofsky, J. L. (1976). Repression-senisization and affect
cognition: an examination of two defensive modes
purportedly measured by the R-S scale. Jggrggl 9f

Millham, J., & Jacobson, L. I. (1978). The need for
approval. In M. London and J. Exner (Eds.) Dimensions

91 Egggonglitz. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Rychalak, J. F. (1981). tr d ion to r nalit and
her : a h o - on ruc i n r h
(2nd e99). Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.

Schill, T., Emanuel, 8., Pedersen, U., Schneider, L.,
& Uorchowiak, D. (1970). Sexual responsivity of
defensive and non-defensive sensitizers and repressors.

Jggrngl of goggglting ang Qlinigal Psghglggz, 35, 44-47.

97

Shapiro, D. (1965). ngrogig §tzlg§. New York: Basic

Books.

Small, D. J. & Hurley, J. R. (1978). Work effectiveness
and personality attributes of mental health
professionals. In K. M. Nash, N. Lifton, & S. E.

Smith (Eds.), The paraprofessionals: selected
Rgagingg. New Haven: Advocate Press. Pp. 289-301.

 

Strickland, B. R. (1977). Approval Motivation. In E. T.

Blass (Ed.), Pgrgpnalitz variaples in socal interagtion.
New York: John Uiley & Sons.

Sullivan, H. S. (1940). Congeptions pf modern pszchiatrz.

New York: Norton9

Sullivan, H. S. (1953). The interpersonal theorz of
pszchiatrz. New York: Norton.

Sullivan, H. S. (1964). Th; fugion of pgzchiatrz and social
sgienge. New York: Norton.

Swenson, C. H., Jr. (1973). Ingrgdpction to interpersonal

,Lglptlppg. Glenview, Illinois: Scott, Foresman
and Company.

Taylor, J. A. (1953). A personality scale of manifest anxiety.
urn l f Abn rm l and ci l P ch l , 48, 285-290.

Tempone, V. J., & Lamb, U. (1967). Repression-senistization
and its relation of measures of adjustment and conflict.

Jggrnal 9f angylging szghglgz, 31, 131-136.

Weinberger, D. A., Schwartz, 0. E. & Davidson, R. J.
(1979). Low-anxious, high-anxious, and repressive coping
coping styles: Psychometric patterns and behavioral and

pysiological responses to stress. Joprnal of Abnormal
PS .1010 g 92’ 39-52e

      

HIC GAN STRTE

HI UNIV. LIBRARIES
WWlllWlWWWNIHHUIMIHII‘IIWI
31293006852028