l 5 HI II|I\|‘*}' I 'IIMII l' "IAIZIII, IIIIL‘ IIIIIIIIIII “III“ Iiu‘I' II‘I'IX‘III IIIIIIIII'IIIIIII IIIIIIIII “Ii IIIIIII II III ~ 'I IIII‘IIIIIIII' ‘* I‘III TIM I‘I ”III: :15.” jI'I‘ VIII I ”III '{Ivl' I‘II-Jf Iii; :IIII’ : V. {:7 ‘3‘! M ~'—. )I‘ I?" pm; -. I? {3%qu fifiai 'Z‘t. ._..‘. «L .‘Jr ~ :w_ cram“ if"; ._:.._.: ’.cv v ~ ; ‘ #1331411}th III III-III ‘ ILIIIIIIIIII I} II II - (he 4" p. 1‘ "‘::-_v—.—- I. - -avv . .w. ‘ A ~ ’12. «3‘: E? , 1 -*—L +—a ’-— mpg -. m...:;-3:. “m ‘ J ~u '0 5.3M . w. - WM .4» P- M.- . Na. ._ M ‘ A - . . . - A .A .. .- ‘ .I,. , . A v . .4 V . ~22. “~.:x:‘___ “"—~"'._"'|- h - 33"“ . . - . ._ . o... ““'r~_‘,.._._.. .oo fl. .M a W - _..~:-..., . O J‘. VJ,V,_ A 2:0 '1’ .. Qua"; ....- 4.:- .. can-.4 wcr v.'~ - *— .Eou... .4 .- A 1. o u - . 0‘ . . ' o 1 -4 u . . . A ~ _ ,A‘ , . .. r . u v 0 C l 1—3. . . ~ -« m . .2 .'...2. > ~ - -. 1 '. . _ - m « .. .- _ - W -_ ....-.'.31_.L~...-. . v. . - ‘0. . W .3127". o I ‘ . . . .n‘....'.r‘ .. , a“ .. . . .233 “.2 . at. . ,. .. - I. 3374?. . . 51 .a l I S Q n . ;. v. '51.; I IIIE YTIIIIItIII V I g I l I o I I v o n t u u a... . v‘ '32:! III: B 5 , .3 I I ‘1‘ if‘ a . “I 'I v.‘ ' 5 Lg)!“ l. 1 z I u 4' . ': III} I‘IIIIaigIIs '6 , ., fiffi'. I .3 ‘l"'{ .I q 'n. .' I" 'v . ~ ‘I '3; I. .I. :1 i, I : t' ' ' II ' : . I' I: D. O " E l . n. Z'igjifi a I :5“: V. I ( I . I.I-! Inf“? 3-.‘1‘7'H3I; II: I.'EI%:1:':J':a : '9 ‘I ; v'pI" .' z " " .'\.;':' .. 'IIIIWIIIHII v1 11‘ I. 3 z; - I" ‘ ”I ' ' .'. ”Al-IIIII'I‘ =I'iI'II;I§: I 25‘ ' z':‘ ‘ I. I If ' .3' -: 9:9“ x :3 E EIEII‘I I 35': :1: 'v: ‘ ’ L : . trekzz,‘ I '1 z ‘ igII fl” ": ‘ : ' 5‘5 1' . I’m .mp3 I; ,Ii! .5 ‘ ~34 5 ‘ :- :2 I I» I! 3.‘ I." «f . Q“..- . III"x \III IIIIII 1.IiII 1 - I I: 42319:: II 1., I! ‘5, 5‘ . ‘ng 4. g észttIIIITII-EIIII g .fifi‘; ' . i :. -I.- - L‘i , EI‘IéIi‘Q‘flz'I’ -‘ 55"“ ' ‘ ' II IiIiIII‘"I'IIJI’III'IIIS‘. ~ “I“III-III?“'IEII‘IIIIIIEIEI‘IIIII‘II! *‘ :- . gnu-II; "'I‘ “IIIIIIvV'Y‘Ia': ' vI.IIITI3iImI§I“' 5*:~‘Ize‘=.%%§:%« ‘IIJ‘IMJ'IEII‘II' us I; ”by; . .~.. :":II%I‘ : :M. :‘z‘w'U-“fi- flay/I1 in} I :,;I - ' '53qu snipedzimfi‘ 93:93:14 «I923. ,: 13%;.»51- 1 '-' 15333:?” IE‘I‘EFT'IrIi’I" ‘SIHJIJ'II'. : : My magi? 16» -. Eh z=e ‘1 : .4? :3='3!= $252\ 24' s'is -~ 5’5“ "muquh' :a.: .‘ ashIf‘JfiN "-z'av‘ ' .:I=:.= WI"? ”WE: '~ i “$in WWII?" 'f:I “VIII ...II€I'II9';:1‘ I :'~"!.§.‘*IIEI“33?I€‘X='.I ”1'. .zéI‘I. IIIfiI‘éIrI t. II n.- Ififlgfigkiafi id .5 . 'II’I IMII’II . m)“. ‘i Wu- : . III: I” HI; 1.1;” 3‘ am: am . ‘o'I‘ II li‘I-Inw “ Fry-1:4 ‘8 13' »-. . : “IIII ”Whiz? ,. . F“ " -“’« - v; .wifii' 7m“ 1 -:sff'-,,I':II‘IIIIEIIqti‘InI fiifiiqfiiuafii '. .7; III' ""I‘I‘I‘I‘ ""I "III ‘I‘ "‘ I'IIIII’IIII‘N"IIIII‘" IIIISEII‘IIIIIsi-EI. ‘xi ;, . "II ' " .I "% IIWII III“ III' I] ”III [II ItI Im ! IIII III III-Er!” I .; ‘ :'£:I." I: III1H I'I ”um! I II"1I 4"" IEIIW :II' III II IIIIIEII I; I II ”I I’ .III 'II‘S ‘ “I” I I 3 ‘I III-I I] IIIII HI I I I'I'I I‘IIII II IIIlIlI‘II III'.‘ IIIIII; IIIIIIIII IIIIIIII ’IIIIII IIIIII": .5: ’J ’1 III' 'IIIIII‘I I'IIIIIIIII w: .21.: llmlllll'! l1|lllllfllllllflllllllllflllllflll 3 1293 00981 4124 p u.- LIBRARY Michigan 5tate University W This is to certify that the dissertation entitled THE RELATIONSHIP OF FOUR FORMS OF NOVELTY-SEEKING TO COPING AND DEFENDING EGO PROCESSES presented by Wendy Jean Fielder has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph .D 0 degree in Psychology (/1. ”my Major professor Dme September 16, 1982 MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 0 12771 MSU RETURNING MATERIALS: Place in book drop to remove this checkout from LIBRARIES .1...gg=gs.. your record. FINES will be charged if book is , . returned after the date ,E” stamped below. K: x w ;:3 my .,«1r , j THE RELATIONSHIP OF FOUR FORMS OF NOVELTY- SEEKING TO COPING AND DEFENDING EGO PROCESSES By Wendy Jean Fielder A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University .in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Psychology 1982 Wendy Jean Fielder ABSTRACT THE RELATIONSHIP OF FOUR FORMS OF NOVELTY- SEEKING TO COPING AND DEFENDING EGO PROCESSES By Wendy Jean Fielder The subject of individual differences in human curiosity has been investigated only recently, and this study was planned to add to that literature. Under investi- gation were the personality characteristics associated with various forms of novelty—seeking, as measured by the Pearson Novelty Experiencing Scale (NES). This scale offers scores in four areas, distinguished by source of the stimuli (internal, or external) and experience of the stimuli (cognitive or sensation). It was hypothesized that attraction to both cognitive and sensation types of novelty would be related to a flexible personality style, while attraction to only one type of novelty would be associated with rigidity and a narrow focus. Haan's (1963) theory of coping and defense processes associates c0ping styles with flexibility, good reality contact, and decision making based on current and future needs, while defensive processes are related to rigidity, reality distortion, and decision making dictated by past experience. Joffe and Naditch (1977) developed a questionnaire to measure these coping and defense variables, and this was used along with the Pearson instrument. It was hypothesized that individuals who reported attraction to only a cognitive, or only a sensation, type of novelty would be more likely to score highly on defense variables than coping, and that indi- viduals who were attracted to both cognitive and sensation types of novelty would show higher scores on c0ping variables than defense. Specifically, single NES scale scores were hypothesized to show significantly higher positive correlations with defense scales than coping, and combined NES scales (a cognitive and a sensation scale) were hypothesized to show significantly higher positive corre- lations with coping scales than defense. These hypotheses were tested with an undergraduate population, with separate analyses conducted for men and women. The hypotheses were not supported by the results, which showed that the rela- tionships between the two measures were quite small. Several possibilities were offered to explain these results. First, aspects of the Joffe and Naditch scales' validity“were discussed. Secondly, the restrictions of the sample group were covered. Finally, theoretical implications of the results and suggestions for future research were offered. DEDICATION To my father, who taught me to be curious ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS A dissertation is worked on and completed within the context of jobs, classes, and relationships, and so in that sense does not stand alone. Although it is essentially a solitary endeavor, and sometimes a lonely one, there is an important component of other people's influence on the process, even though that may not appear clearly in the final form of the paper. I am grateful to several people for their participation with me, their thoughts, efforts, patience and faith, and take this opportunity to thank the following: Dr. Al Aniskiewicz, who was very generous with his time, always respectful, and one of those rare, good teachers. . . in large part because he has never seemed to need to forget what it was like being a graduate student. Dr. Larry O'Kelly, for some fascinating conversations, and his excitement about intellectual puzzles. Dr. Douglas Miller, who has helped me maintain perspective about schooling and this business of psychology . to remember that the "human” in human endeavor is the most important thing. Steven Fielder, for many cheerful cards, letters, and newspaper clippings, continuous encouragement, and the loan of his hip waders. Diane Deutsch, who shared the enthusiasm and anxiety of research with me, and who has been unstinting in her affection and support. iii Pat Ponto, whose love and clear thinking and willingness to tolerate the unsolved and unknown has been invaluable. and Russ Hogan, my close companion through this process, for loving and believing in me. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS page LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION. 1 Early Theories of Curiosity . . . . . . 2 Optimal Level of Stimulation Theories . . . . 4 Psychoanalytic Theory . . . . . . . . . 9 Effectance Motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . lO Stimuli Variables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Complexity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Novelty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Exploration and Play. . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Value of Curiosity . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 General Hypotheses. . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Early Measures of Curiosity . . . . . . . . . 27 The Change Seeker Index . . . . . . . . . 28 The Similies Preference Inventory . . . . . 29 Stimulus- Variation Seeking Scale. . . . . . 30 The Sensation Seeking Scale . . . . . . 32 Pearson' 3 Novelty Experiencing Scale. . . . 38 Novelty Seeking and Curiosity . . . . . . . . 46 The Ego, Defense and Coping . . . . . . 49 Coping Defending and Novelty Seeking . . . . 60 Specific Hypotheses . . . . . . . 62 II. METHOD. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 Subjects. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 Materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68 III. RESULTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7O Pearson Scales. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 Scale Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . 70 Ranking Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74 Joffe/Naditch Scales. . . . . . . . . . . . . 74 Testing of Hypotheses . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 Page Post Hoc Analyses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 Joffe/Naditch Scales. . . . . . . . . . . . 86 Pearson Scales. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96 IV. DISCUSSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109 APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112 A. PEARSON NOVELTY EXPERIENCING SCALE . . . . . . 112 B. ITEMS USED FOR JOFFE AND NADITCH SCALES (California Personality Inventory and 119 Items from MMPI) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116 C. DEMOGRAPHIC QUESTIONNAIRE. . . . . . . . . . . 13“ D. CONSENT FORM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135 REFERENCES 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 136 vi TABLE U1 10. ll. 12. 13. LIST OF TABLES Taxonomy of Ego Processes Validity Coefficients of the Joffe and Naditch Ego Scales. Test-Retest Coefficients for the Joffe and Naditch Ego Scales. . . . . . . . Reliabilities, Means and Standard Deviations for Pearson Novelty Experiencing Scales (male and female subjects together) Reliabilities, Means and Standard Deviations for Pearson Novelty Experiencing Scales. Males, Females. . . . . Correlations Among Pearson Novelty Experienc- ing Scales. Internal Consistency Reliabilities for Joffe and Naditch Ego Scales. . Correlations for Pearson Desire for Novelty Scale with Joffe and Naditch Summed Coping and Summed Defense Scales . Correlations for Pearson Novelty Experiencing Scales with Joffe and Naditch Coping and Defense Scales: Males. . . . Correlations for Pearson Novelty Experiencing Scales with Joffe and Naditch Coping and Defense Scales. Females. . . . Correlations Among Joffe and Naditch Coping Scales. Males. . . . . . . . . . Correlations Among Joffe and Naditch Defense Scales: Males, Correlations Among Joffe and Naditch Coping Scales: Females. vii Page 54 58 59 71 72 73 76 77 78 79 88 89 9O (Table) Page 14. Correlations Among Joffe and Naditch Defense Scales: Females . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91 15. Correlations of Joffe and Naditch Coping and Defense Scales with Summed Coping and Summed Defense: Males. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92 16. Correlations of Joffe and Naditch Coping and Defense Scales with Summed Coping and Summed Defense: Females. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93 viii CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION The subject of curiosity has received attention for about the last 30 years, with individual differences in humans being addressed for only the last half of that time period. Because this is a relatively recent area of study, and perhaps because of the nature of the subject matter, there is still a heavy focus upon theory, and the area of measurement of curiosity and exploratory behavior in humans is still in its infancy. The proposed study deals with the measurement of these individual differences, and the rela- tionship of curiosity to other personality variables. Consequently, the following literature review covers several areas. First we will review the various theoreti- cal positions related to curiosity and exploration, followed by a review of the literature on specific stimuli charac- teristics which seem to elicit exploration on the part of both animals and humans. Then several measures which have been develOped to measure individual differences in humans will be covered, with the bulk of attention paid to the measures which have received the most use. We will also review in detail the measure which this study will employ. Finally, we will cover the theoretical basis for and details of the instrument which will be used to assess some other personality variables, and offer some specific hypotheses for relationships between the curiosity and personality variables. Throughout this review, emphasis will be placed on research and theory related to human behavior, although some of the animal research will be covered in a summarized form. Early Theories of Curiosity Before the 1950's little attention was paid to behaviors which could be labeled as exploratory or curious (Fowler, 1965). However, about this time it became clear to many investigators that not all of behavior could be explained in terms of strictly biologically sustaining activities, and animals were observed to work and perform tasks for the simple "reward" of being given access to novel or unusual stimulation. The task for experimenters was to formulate a theoretical basis for explaining these behaviors, and two general camps emerged on this subject: those emphasizing curiosity as a motivator, and those postu- lating boredom as the driving force behind exploration. The general question appeared to be whether explora- tion was the result of attraction to novel stimulation, or a consequence of satiation of the individual organism with its current surroundings; i.e., whether the crucial motiva- tion lay in the external stimulation, or within the organism. The curiosity group supported this first explanation; that novel stimulation activated exploratory behavior, and determined its direction; that a more classic drive reduction model was inappropriate. An example of this viewpoint is Harlow (1953b) who stated, " it is my belief that the theory which describes learning as dependent on drive reduction is false, that internal drive as such is a variable of little importance to learning, and that this small importance steadily decreases as we ascend the phyletic scale and as we investigate learning problems of progressive complexity" (pg. 24). However, critics of this position (e g., Fowler, 1965) pointed to the paradoxical nature of assuming that the stimuli motivated the behavior when in experimental situations the task was completed before the stimuli was present. The contrary point of view, the "boredom theory," stated that the salient motivator for exploration was the state of the animal, who had become satiated with familiar and unchanging surroundings. Myers and Miller (1954) stated, "We . . . believe some writers have been too quick to assume that novel stimuli elicit a drive simply because such stimuli commonly elicit activity or exploration. This may well be a case of confusing the cue properties of a stimulus with possible drive properties" (P8. 435). In this framework, the motivating force was conceptualized to be the deprivation of the organism in terms of novelty or inter- esting stimuli, with novel stimuli themselves being cues which provided direction for the motivation. One way in which to resolve the paradox noted for the curiosity position and to compatibly join the two theories is offered by Fowler (1965). First he invokes a Hullian position on learning, in which curiosity can be seen as the result of learned anticipation of the reinforcement of novel stimulation. He likens this to the learned response of salivation found in Pavlov's work, in which the dogs learned to salivate in anticipation of being fed. An example of this with regard to curiosity is what he views as the learned response of orienting behaviors (changes in physical position and/or heightened levels of arousal in anticipation of reception of new stimuli). Tying together the boredom and curiosity positions, Fowler sug- gests that an animal in a familiar and unchanging environment, who is satiated and deprived of novel stimula- tion, will have a drive level commensurate with the length of time it has been so deprived. It will have an ”incentive motivation" (curiosity) which is positively related to the extent of change offered by the novel stimulation. Optimal Level of Stimulation Theories Before Fowler's consolidation appeared, other theorists, unsatisfied with the paradoxical natures of the earlier positions, developed explanations for the motiva- tion of exploration in different directions. The confusing results that both high and low levels of stimulation tended to be reinforcing under certain conditions led to the theories of optimal levels of stimulation. In what is perhaps the most widely cited reference in modern works on exploration, Berlyne (1960) presented his theory of optimal arousal. He conceptualized arousal as a U-shaped function of stimulus impact, with both boredom (with monotonous and familiar stimuli) and conditions of novel and unusual stimuli, producing high levels of arousal. He maintained that the organism is motivated to reduce arousal levels to an optimal level, although the definition of what precisely was optimal was not stated. In his theory, arousal is the result of conflict, of which he described six types. First is doubt, which is the condition of indecision about whether to believe or disbelieve a certain statement, or configuration of stimuli. Second is perplexity, in which an individual has evidence supporting a number of mutually exclusive beliefs, and where there is no clear ”right" answer. A third type of conflict is a condition of contradiction. The fourth is conceptual incongruity, in which two properties or ideas which are thought to be incompatible can also be seen as existing simultaneously. This can be thought of as similar to the dynamic formulation of ambivalence, especially if the individual has been led to believe that only one type of feeling can exist at any given time. The fifth type of conflict is confusion, in which what is perceived is indistinct and muddled enough so that a clear label cannot be placed upon it. Finally, Berlyne offers irrelevance as the sixth state of conflict in which an individual perceives an expectation that he behave in a manner which he believes to be irrelevant. The example given is of a person beginning in psychoanalysis and being asked to free associate while all his past experience has led him to value verbalizations which are organized and coherent. According to this theory, conflict leads to a high state of arousal, which implies tension, although Berlyne states that this tension is not to be considered punishing. Nevertheless, the organism is motivated to reduce this tension by reducing the conflict. Berlyne talks about three ways in which conflict can be minimized. The first is conciliation, in which additional learning is acquired which makes incompatible responses appear compatible. Secondly, there is swamping, in which the subject acquires new response tendencies which are stronger than the conflicting tendencies, and therefore tend to dominate them. Finally, there is disequalization, where one of the alternatives is strengthened, and the others are weakened. He offers the example of eliminating options to illustrate this process. All three of these processes rely strongly on the acquisition of new knowledge, which is how explora- tory behavior figures into the process. When new learning is acquired, incompatible stimuli may be found to be com- patible, a new tendency can be strengthened so as to outweigh alternative tendencies, and new information can assist a person in eliminating options, therefore strengthening one particular explanation. In fact, Berlyne defines the function of knowledge as acting as a supplement to external stimuli in reducing conflict; to overcome the deficiencies of perception, which may be distorted (pg. 266). He coins the term "epistemic behavior,” for this behavior which has to do with the acquisition of knowledge, and thinking. To further clarify the function, he divides this into three categories; epistemic observations, epistemic thinking (creative or productive thinking which gpnerates new knowledge), and consultation, in which the individual includes others in this thinking, through reading, asking questions, etc. All three of these activi- ties can contribute to exploratory behavior. Continuing along this line of thought, he calls "epistemic curiosity" that level of arousal (created by conflict) which moti- vates a quest for knowledge and is reduced when that knowledge is gained. Berlyne's conceptualization has not escaped criticism. In Fowler's (1965) extensive review of theories of explora- tion, he notes that although this formulation has the attractive features of providing the experimenter with grounds by which to make predictions about behavior, Berlyne does not remain consistent to his conflict-reductflni theory, and at other times has postulated a curiosity drive. This drive would not be dependent on stimulus deprivation, and consequently he is presenting a theory very similar to the original curiosity theory covered above, with its drawbacks and contradictions. Maddi (1961) points out the confusing nature of hypothesizing a system in which approach to conflictual stimuli (e.g., novel stimuli) is associated with a state of tension. It is therefore not clear why an animal or human would approach, or explore, unknown situations, if the function of much of behavior is to reduce conflict. He also criticizes the ambiguous nature of the concept of "optimal." This latter critique appears in Fiske and Maddi's Functions of Varied Experience, which appeared in 1961. In this volume, the two authors present a combination of eight principles to define and delineate the functions of varied stimuli. The basic tenets of this theoretical position are as follows: the organism's level of arousal (or activation) is directly related to the impact (defined as a combination of intensity, novelty, and meaningfulness) of all the internal and external stimuli presented to the organism at a given time. For any given task, there is an optimal level of activation for effective performance, and the organism will work so as to maintain this optimal activation level. For each phase in the organism's sleep- wakefulness cycle there is a characteristic or normal level of activation, and in the absence of specific tasks, the organism will behave so as to keep its arousal at the appropriate level for its position on this sleep-wakefulness cycle. Finally, negative effect is associated with marked departure of activation level from the optimal level, and positive affect with bringing the experienced level of activation closer to the optimal level. Two basic differences in this proposal from Berlyne's are that in this formulation, the organism works to maintahn an appropriate level of arousal (whereas in the former, behavior is geared to reduce arousal), and in Fiske and Maddi's principles a definition of optimal is offered (tied to the sleep-wakefulness cycle). Fowler is critical of this theory also, saying that it does not account for habituation to novel stimulation and does not offer a consistent way to predict behavior. This writer is of the opinion that these issues were adequately addressed by Fiske and Maddi, but regardless of how one feels about these points, this work has been and continues to be widely cited, and used for the basis of much research in the area of exploration. Psychoanalytic Theory Curiosity and exploration do not have a central place in psychoanalytic theory, and when they are mentioned, the reference is to curiosity as symbolic of other, more basic, prOcesses and drives. The desire to know is described as arising from ungratified impulses or drives, with curiosity emerging as the sublimated form of these impulses. For example, Fenichel (1945) describes oral impulses which are transformed into expressions of curiosity: ”The means lO employed to quench curiosity, in particular reading as a substitute for eating,seem to represent specifically an oral-sadistic incorporation of alien objects " (pg. 491). Nunberg (1961) reports a case study of a curious man, in which the sublimated drive is sexual, but is expressed in an insatiable desire to know. This theory has not been tested experimentally, which is a drawback (Berlyne, 1960) and this writer might also add that it is heavily weighted on the side of discussing curiosity only as it is expressed pathologically. More will be said later on this subject. Effectance Motivation The 1959 introduction by White of ”effectance motiva- tion" in his classic and important article offered yet another way to explain exploratory behavior; inconsistent with drive theory, and more compatible with the optimal levels of stimulation or activation mentioned above. In reviews of both the animal research up to that time, and psychoanalytic and ego-psychology theory, he traces basi- cally parallel lines of thought. Drive theory, in its traditional form, could not account for exploration, because exploration did not correspond to a tissue need or deficit, did not lead to an identifiable consummatory response, and led to an increase in drive rather than a decrease. Con- ceptualizing exploration as a secondarily reinforced behavior fared no better, because exploration appeared in 11 the developmental sequence before the organism could meet many of its primary drives. White also dispatches with the explanation that exploration serves the purpose of reducing anxiety, and for this reason has survived as a common behavior pattern. He notes that it makes little sense to postulate an approach to anxiety producing stimuli, and in this anticipates Maddi's later critique of Berlyne's concepts. Similarly, White finds holes in the arguments for seeing exploration as a partial instinct, or a result of the motivational impact of neutralized eros energy. Instead, he postulates an energy source, present from birth, which he labels effectance motivation, which energizes a search for "competence." Competence he defines more broadly than its common usage to include exploration, activity and manipulation. This theory is based on the importance that organisms find in having an impact on their environment, a position which has more recently been used as the underpinnings of a theory to explain depression (Selgiman, 1975). Effectance is very similar to the desire for mastery, and White describes it as follows: "It is directed, selective, and persistent, and it is continued not because it serves primary drives, which indeed it cannot serve until it is almost perfected, but because it satisfies an intrinsic need to deal with the environment" (pg. 318). He points to the considerable biological significance of this motivation in terms of survival, especially in the human species where such a tremendous amount must be learned 12 before independence from a caretaker can be reached. While he does not offer this motivation as the central energizing factor in adult behavior, he does suggest that ” . . . the satisfaction of effectance contributes significantly to those feelings of interest which often sustain us as well in day-to-day actions . . ." (pg. 323). Stimuli Variables No overview of the principles and theories about curiosity and exploratory behavior would be complete with- out some mention of the extensive work that has been done in an attempt to delineate stimuli characteristics which elicit investigation in animals and humans. Here we are moving from an emphasis on motivation inherent in the organism, to motivation produced in the organism by the presence of certain kinds of stimuli. While Berlyne (1960) lists visual-intensity, color, novelty, surprisedness, com- plexity, uncertainty, incongruity, affective value, and conflict as relevant stimulus characteristics, most work has focused on complexity and novelty. These variables are not only difficult to measure "purely" (with problems of individual differences in experience intervening with novelty for example),but developing measurements of either which do not contain elements of the other is also very problematic. "Novel" stimuli can contain components of complexity, and certainly complex stimuli can include elements of novelty. For example, if one were interested in viewing a painting one had not seen before, one might 13 assume that some of this interest was the result of the novel arrangement of shapes and forms upon the canvas. How- ever, this interest could also be the outcome of attraction to the complex arrangement of forms, or more likely some combination of both novelty and complexity. While separat- ing the two for discussion is somewhat arbitrary and arti- ficial, what follows below will do just this as most experimentation on the topic has done so. Complexity This topic is perhaps best introduced by a description of how this variable has often been measured. Nunnally and Lemond (1973) have cited three common ways in which this variable has been manipulated. The first is randomly generated visual patterns; geometric forms, dot patterns and flashes of light, with geometric forms being the most widely used. Second are the intuitively designed forms often called "Berlyne stimuli," because of his pioneering work in this area. For examples of these stimuli, the reader is directed to Berlyne, Craw, Salapater and Lewis (1963) or Berlyne (1966). A third category is composed of scenes from real life which have been rated by subjects as to their complexity. Most commonly, all these stimuli are presented in pairs, with the dependent variable being the amount of time spent looking at each of the stimuli. Reviews of the studies attempting to measure com- plexity are not consistent as to the conclusions drawn. While there is clearly some relationship between complex l4 stimulation and investigatory behavior, the form of this relationship is unclear. Hutt's (1970) review of this literature points to many discrepant findings, whether the underlying focus of the research is to demonstrate a linear, monotonic function between investigation and complexity, or to illustrate an inverted U-shaped function. When one looks at the research done with both children and adults, the data is even more difficult to interpret. Her tenta- tive conclusions fall in two areas. First, she questions whether stimulus variability is the most adequate or fruit- ful area to investigate to account for exploration_or curiosity. Secondly, she cites many difficulties with the studies themselves, in terms of consistent definitions of complexity, variation of the stimuli along many dimensions simultaneously, and inconsistency as to the use of terminology; for example, calling viewing time ”preference." Nunnally and Lemond (1973) review 39 studies having to do with the relationship between visual investigation and complexity. They emphasize the generally monotonic rela- tionship found in the majority of studies between the amount of viewing time and the complexity of the stimula- tion. While this is not true of all the studies covered, and while they acknowledge the problems of instructional set in producing comparable results from study to study, they conclude that there is no evidence for hypothesizing a U-shaped function (as proposed by Berlyne). Their con- clusion is that the research presented supports their 15 theoretical position of a meaning-processing model, rather than an optimal level of stimulation model. Continuing on this line of thought is their 1974 study (Lemond, Durham, Slater, Wilson and Nunnally), in which the relation- ship between viewing time and complexity was found to be positive and monotonic. Fowler (1965) reviews some of the animal research relative to this question. These investigations have been made primarily with rats as subjects. He concludes that ” . . . the findings of these studies demonstrated that an animal would explore a stimulus object or pattern to the extent that it was novel, unfamiliar, complex, or provided a change in the animal's present or recent pattern of stimulation" (P8. 28). Novelty. In some contrast to the equivocal complexity literature, the impact of novel stimulation appears more consistent and predictable. Berlyne (1960) offers defini- tions of novelty that have persisted and been used repeatedly in subsequent research. He distinguishes between complete, short-term, and long-term novelty, which by necessity are dependent upon the past experience of the organism being studied. Complete novelty implies that the organism has never encountered this stimuli in the past, short-term novelty indicates a situation in which the organism has perceived the stimuli before, but there has been a short time intervening between this perception and past ones, and long-term novelty describes a longer time l6 interspersed between the previous encounter and the present one. He also distinguishes between absolute and relative novelty, with the former being the presentation of some- thing totally new and unlike anything perceived earlier, and the latter describing simply a new arrangement of already familiar parts. In looking over these definitions, the reader is likely to be struck immediately with the possible measurement problems, both in the potential over- lap among these various forms of novelty, and in the interaction effect with individual experience. These latter problems are a bit easier to control with animals, as their environment can be more closely regulated over the lifetime of the animal, but they become a distinct difficulty in research with humans. Consequently, much of the research with humans involves presentation of incongruous stimulation (relative novelty). The subject is shown two images, or objects, one of them being judged rather familiar, and the other being some unusual combination of forms; for example, one animal's body with another animal's head. Animal research is more likely to involve the presentation, to rats for example, of objects the experimenter is sure the animal has never encountered before, or new visual patterns, such as striped walls on a T-maze. In spite of these definition and measurement problems, the conclusion that novelty generally attracts attention is widely supported. Hutt (1970) states, ”Unlike 17 complexity, novelty is agreed to be a stimulus attribute prepotent in eliciting attention, orientation, and explora- tion. In this respect the literature appears unequivocal... (pg. 140). Nunnaly and Lemond (1973) cite all the research to their knowledge having to do with novelty and visual exploration of human subjects, which amounted to 33 experiments. Their overview shows that in 29 of these studies, novel stimulation elicited visual investigation, in three no consistent relationship was found, and in only one did the familiar stimulus elicit more looking time, and then only under the special instructional set of ”preferred" stimulus. Fowler's (1965) review of animal research results in a similar conclusion, as does Berlyne's (1966). Often, when the topic of novelty is discussed, some reference is made to a phenomenon labeled ”fear of noveltyfl' Many theorists and reviewers have noted that in cases of what appeared to be extreme novelty, the reaction of the organism was retreat with what looked like fearful behavior (Berlyne, 1963; Fowler, 1965; Walker, 1961). An early example often cited is the reaction of monkeys described by Hobb (1946). In this example, monkeys presented with an anesthetized chimpanzee, or a model of just a monkey's head, reacted almost hysterically. The traditional explanation is that these stimuli were pp novel as to be frightening. These examples continue to be presented; rats' behavior upon being placed on an elevated 18 maze, small children's fearful reaction upon being presented with new toys, etc. Another explanation is offered by Hutt (1970). She reviews many of these examples, and concludes that the evidence for offering fear of novelty as the explanation is not as clear as other authors may indicate. In many of these studies, the fearful reactions came not only when the subject was presented with a certain stimuli, but were confounded by the manner in which the stimuli was presented. As an illustration, she notes that children who are found to react fearfully are in situations where they are separated from their mothers, and given a new toy by a stranger, often at a time in their development when "stranger anxiety" is a salient factor. To clarify this issue, she offers a different categori- zation of novelty than that introduced by Berlyne; not as a replacement for his categories, but as an addition. These three areas are object-novelty, environment-novelty and conspecific-novelty (pg. 141). She points out that often these three types of novelty are not addressed separately, and that usually the focus is upon the first of these, without consideration being paid to the interaction of object-novelty with the latter two. Consequently, she argues that many of the so-called fear of novelty reactions noted in previous research can be explained in an alternate fashion by considering the survival mechanisms developed in animal species in their natural environments. For example, 19 it is sensible to consider that monkeys would profit in the survival arena by reacting with flight and hiding to the presentation of another monkey which appears dead. Like- ‘wise, many species of rats react with fear and attempts to escape when placed on an elevated platform, so the issue may not be that the objects on the platform are too novel, but that the environment in which they are located is inherently frightening to the animal. She concludes that "When unconfounded with the effects of environment and/or stranger novelty, the effect of object-novelty appears to be to elicit approach and investigation" (pg. 157). Exploration and Play Up until now, we have discussed theories and some characteristics of exploration, and the reader may have wondered if there is a difference between this and play. While many authors have not made any distinction between the two, even authors whose primary area of expertise is exploration in children, there are several who have felt this differentiation is important. Walker (1961) defines exploration as a process by which the animal (or human,one can suppose) gradually and cautiously exposes its receptors to the environment. In this process, the presence of novel stimuli is especially important. In some contrast, play involves a wide variety of vigorous and spirited activities" (pg. 175) which serve to move the organism or its parts through space. Although he does not state this explicitly, play 20 seems to involve more abandonment of caution and planning, with more total involvement in the activity and some suspension of self awareness. Weisler and McCall (1976) offer an explanation of the two processes that is somewhat similar. In their review, they conclude that exploration consists of ” . . . a relatively stereotyped perceptual-motor examination of an object, situation, or event, the function of which is to reduce subjective uncertainty (i.e., acquire information)" (pg. 493). This departs from Walker's definition in their assessment of the goals, or reasons for this behavior, and in this they are clearly supporting Berlyne's concept of optimal arousal and conflict reduction. On the subject of play they state, "Play consists of behaviors and behavioral sequences that are organism-determined rather than stimulus- dominated, behaviors that appear to be intrinsically motivated and apparently performed for "their own sake" and that are conducted with relative relaxation and positive affect” (pg. 494). A similar differentiation can be found from Berlyne (1960, 1966) in his concepts of specific and diverse explora- tion. He says that these are two distinct types of exploration, which can be separated on the basis of the different biological needs which they serve. The first, specific exploration, occurs when the animal is motivated to seek out more information about his environment due to his uncertainty and resultant conflict (this is very like 21 Weisler and McCall's definition of exploration). Berlyne states that this type of activity, motivated by discomfort and with the goals of acquiring further information, is what we would typically call "curiosity." The term "specific" comes from his belief that in this process only certain types of stimuli and their investigation can satisfy the urge. On the other hand, "diverse" exploration motives can be satisfied by any number of varying stimuli. Here again, one can see the influence of the boredom- curiosity dichotomy; with specific exploration serving the needs of curiosity, and diverse exploration being motivated by a more general state of boredom. Hutt (1970) ties Berlyne's concepts into the distinc- tion between exploration (which she calls investigation) and play. She finds, in a review of the literature, and from her own research with children, that specific explora- tion has many of the components of investigation, while diverse exploration corresponds quite clearly to what she would term play activities. One can see, therefore, that at least in this one small area of thought on curiosity, there is significant agreement upon definition of terms. Hutt sums up her thoughts on the subject by saying, ”If the intensity and availability of specific exploratory responses are a measure of an animal's ability to survive in an environment subject to frequent change, the extent and variety of its diversive activities is a measure of its flexibility and adaptability" (pg. 169). 22 Value of Curiosity All through this discussion we have seen hints of value labels placed on curious behavior, which is somewhat unusual in that many other animal and human functions are not talked about in terms of value; they are simply described and elements are studied. Although it is diffi- cult to say for certain why this should be different with curiosity, one possibility is that until recently the entire area was not studied, or recognized to much of an extent. One gets the impression that some authors feel pressed to justify their interest in the topic, or to justify paying serious attention to exploration; to insist that not only is it a separate topic of study, but that the function has a reason for existing. Another possibility is that in earlier psychoanalytic writings, curiosity was mentioned as if it was present only in certain types of individuals: those individuals for whom curiosity was a symptom of deeper pathology. Based on and clearly to refute this viewpoint, one finds some authors building a case for the healthy functioning of curiosity in the average organism. What follows is a brief review of some of these views, some of which have had a lasting impact on the research and thought in this area. Probably the most influential speaker on this topic is White (1959). The basic tenets of his theory have been covered above, but it is worth restating that his underly- ing conception is of an innate, healthy motivation towards 23 competence, which includes exploration. He is clear about seeing this as a desirable and necessary attribute and states an autonomous capacity to be interested in the environment has great value for the survival of a species" (P8. 315). While he does speak about some of the animal research, his primary focus is on the part played by exploration in human development and growth. Both Weisler and McCall and Hutt cited above support the concept of exploration being essential for survival. The first say " . . . exploratory behavior is pervasive among mammals and is obviously adaptive" (P8. 493). Hutt states, "It is suggested that selection pressures have acted upon man in a manner so as to favor those individuals with the greatest exploratory tendencies. Consequently we now find in man an 'innate' attraction to novelty (pg. 142). While curiosity is far from the main subject being covered, the ideas presented in Shapiro(1965, 1981) on neurotic styles and autonomy and rigidity are also sup- portive of the concept of curiosity being a healthy and normal function. In his detailed description of various neurotic styles, Shapiro refers in most of them to the consequences that style has on the expression of curiosity. The general conclusion one can draw from reviewing this material is that various neurotic ways of structuring thinking and behavior have a negative impact on the functioning of curiosity; either preventing this function 24 entirely from operating (as in the hysterical style) or narrowing its focus dramatically (obsessive-compulsive and paranoid style). He describes in detail (1981) the develop- ment and significance for healthy functioning of autonomy, with one of the early stages being the acquisition of the ability to view things in a more detached manner separate from the self. This detachment aids in the development of curiosity, and he states . with the achievement of a more detached and abstract awareness of the world, of some of the world's possibilities beyond the apparent, a newly reflective child comes into being. He has a new curiosity and, for example, new interests in how things work" (pg. 54-55). Maw and Maw, who have done extensive work on curiosity in children as it relates to the learning process, primarily in schools, are also clear about seeing curiosity as a positive attribute. In this large 1964 study, they begin by stating that curiosity is the basis for development in several areas: 1. Learning depends on curiosity. 2. Creativity requires curiosity. 3. Sound mental health demands that the individual be curious. (pg. 14) Moving a little further afield from literature which has curiosity as its central topic, one finds an interest- ing article by Greenwald (1980), on ego functioning. His interest is in what he terms the "totalitarian ego"; his explanatory label for functions of the ego which tend to 25 distort and restructure reality according to certain principles. He lists three "biases," for which he cites research and anecdotal support; egocentricity (self perceived as more central to events than it is), "beneffectance" (self perceived as responsible for desired, but not undesired outcomes), and conservatism (resistance to cognitive change) (pg. 604). The relevance of his think- ing for the current discussion is found in his assessment of the survival value of these biases. While he notes that flexibility in thinking and perceiving new ideas would seem to have a positive functional value, he also concludes that a level of rigidity and "totalitarianism" may very well serve as a stabilizing force, preserving the organization of knowledge and the self, and enabling the individual to pursue more fully certain lines of thought without being distracted by new ideas. If one thinks about these concepts in terms of curiosity, one might postulate that a more flexible, less "totalitarian” individual would be more likely to notice and investigate a wide range of stimuli, but that a more rigid person would be more likely to selectively investigate in depth a fewer number of areas. In this latter example, one might find a person similar to those Shapiro describes as obsessive compulsive; with a narrow focus, but with the potential for extensive produc- tivity, and in the Western culture at least, recognition for that persistence. 26 It seems relatively clear, therefore, that assessing curiosity in terms of production or achievement has the likelihood of teaching very little about curiosity in itself, and is perhaps more likely to say something simply about the values of the culture. It would seem more pro- ductive to attempt to look at curiosity as a process, regardless of its results (although it is difficult to totally separate the two). In this, one might escape the difficulty of trying to label curiosity as either "good" or "bad," but instead take a closer look at the manner in which it interacts with various personality variables. General Hypotheses The proposed study is an attempt to do just that; to clarify how curiosity may fit and interact with the more general structure of personality. It is well to keep in mind that here we will be moving from investigation of the general functioning and underlying motivation of curiosity, to assessing individual differences in the desire to explore and the relationship of these desires to other aspects of personality. Following the theorizing of both Shapiro and Greenwald, one can hypothesize that people who are more flexible, reality-oriented and open to experience in general would be more likely to be highly curious, while those who are more rigid, and in need of distorting reality in order to reduce threat, would be likely to show a lower level of curiosity. 27 Furthermore, one can hypothesize that a person who is more open and flexible would be likely to show curiosity about a wide range of stimuli, while their more rigid counter- parts would be likely to experience curiosity about only a narrow band of experience, if at all. In investigating these hypotheses, the next task is to review and chose some methods of assessing the variable of curiosity, and the concept of flexibility vs. rigidity in personality organization. Below, we will first cover the various methods which have been developed to assess individual differences in curiosity, with the most attention paid to those measures which have received the most use, and to the final measure covered which shows the most promise in assisting in answering the above questions. Following that, we will review a promising instrument designed to assess concepts of defense (reality-distortion and rigidity), as well as constructs of coping (flexibility and reality orientation), which will be used to provide the personality variables. Finally, specific hypotheses based on these two instruments will be offered which will address the more general relationships postulated above. Early Measures of Curiosity There are many lesser used measures which have been presented in the literature to measure individual differences in curiosity. The three covered below are those early measures which have received the most attention and use. 28 The Change Seeker Index. The first of these is the Change Seeker Index (Carlington and Shimote, 1964). This was developed using the ideas of Berlyne and Fiske and Maddi, among others, who maintain that a need for changing stimulation is necessary for human functioning. They defined change seeking as an habitual, consistent pattern of behavior which acts to control the amount and kind of stimulus input a given organism receives" (pg. 920) In their conceptualization, stimulation includes both internal and externally derived stimuli. As their purpose was to develop a measure which could be conveniently used in large research projects, they chose to work on a paper and pencil measure, and chose 211 items from other person- ality inventories on an a priori basis which seemed to address the need for stimulus change. These items were administered to three groups: male and female college students and a group of male soldiers. Items which corre- lated at the .05 level with the upper or lower 27% of the distribution in two out of the three groups were retained, resulting in a 95-item questionnaire. Split half and test- retest reliabilities calculated on different groups were at acceptable levels. The scores on this index were found to correlate at a moderately negative level with age, and there did not appear to be any significant relationship with IQ. 29 The Similies Preference Inventory. Pearson and Maddi presented their Similies Preference Inventory in 1966. Based on earlier work (Maddi, Andrews, & Haney, 1964; Maddi and Berne, 1964; Maddi, Propst, & Feldinger, 1965) using the TAT to assess tendencies to seek out variety, the Similies Preference Inventory was an attempt to develop a way to more simply and economically measure this variable than by lengthy and expensive administration and scoring of the TAT. In these earlier studies, the conclusion was drawn that there were three types of needs for variety. The first is a more passive orientation, involving appreciation of novelty without personal initiative needed to produce it (they termed this "desire for novelty"). The second two forms represent a more active stand: one relying on external stimuli ("curiosity"), and the other on internal stimuli such as dreams and fantasies (”novelty of productions"). The Similies Preference Inventory was developed to measure this last form, and contains 54 stems of Similies, with the subject having a choice for each of five possible endings. These endings ranged from the familiar ending (e.g., "limp as a rag") to nonsense endings ("limp as a lump”). Items were selected on an a priori judgment, and were retained on the basis of their correlation with the overall measure. Split-half reliabilities were high (ranging from .93 to .95 over three samples of subjects, again college students and military personnel), although the test-retest reliability was .61. No significant relationships were found between 30 scores on the Similies Preference Inventory and age or sex, but there was some tentative indication that it might be positively related to level of education. Stimulus-Variation Seeking Scale. At about the same time, Penney and Reinher introduced their Stimulus-Variation Seeking Scale (SVSS, 1966). This scale was developed to measure the characteristic amount of exteroceptive stimulus variation sought by an individual, and while the authors indicate that seeking of introceptive stimuli may also be a variable of interest, their scale does not address this. They define an exteroceptive stimulus-variation seeker as ” (1) one who approaches and explores relatively new stimulus situations, (2) one who approaches and explores incongruous and complex stimuli, and (3) one who responds so as to vary stimulation in the presence of frequently experienced stimulation" (P8. 631-32). This definition is taken from the concepts of Berlyne and Fiske and Maddi. One hundred statements (to be answered true or false) were constructed on the basis of this definition, and they were administered to 283 undergraduates (128 males, and 155 females). They do not report any item-test statistics, and apparently did not reject any of the items. The test-retest reliabilities for men and women (over a one-month period) were .84 and .87 respectively. They also report some attempts to assess discriminant and convergent validity, by correlating the SVSS with various other measures. 31 On the discriminant side, they found that the SVSS did not correlate significantly with the Taylor Manifest Anxiety Scale or the California F Scale (to measure authori- tarianism) for either men or women, but somewhat different results were obtained when the SVSS was correlated with the SAT verbal and quantitative scales. For the female subjects, there were still no significant correlations, but the SVSS for men correlated .36 with the verbal SAT scores, and .25 with the quantitative scores. These correlations were significant at the .01 level, although they are somewhat small. To assess convergent validity, the SVSS was compared with a measure of autokinectic perception (AK), the Sensa- tion Seeking Scale (Zuckerman, Kolin, Price, and Zoob, 1964), and the Guilford's Unusual Uses Test (Guilford, 1956). They found that high stimulus-variation seekers perceived significantly more movement in a stationary light (AK) than those who scored low on the SVSS. A moderate level of relationship (r = .33) was found between the SVSS and the Sensation Seeking Scale, and the authors suggest the reason this relationship is not higher is the fact that the Sensation Seeking Scale contains a larger number of sensation-oriented items than the SVSS. Finally, the Pearson product-moment correlation between the SVSS and the number of relevant uses on the Guilford was .45, and between the SVSS and number of original uses on the Guilford, .27. Therefore, a case can be made for the 32 validity of this instrument, on the basis of it not being related to measures for which no relationship was hypothe- sized, and the fact that some relationships were found with measures which should be tapping similar processes. These three measures have received the bulk of their attention in studies having to do with comparison of measure- ment devices, or further work on the instruments themselves. They have not been used extensively in other types of research, and not recently. The Sensation Seeking Scale The measurement device which has received by far the most attention is the Sensation Seeking Scale (SSS), (Zuckerman, Kolin, Price, and Zoob, 1964). We will review the construction and subsequent revisions made of this instrument, as well as take a look at other variables which have been shown to have relationships with it. The SSS was originally developed to help in quantifying the concept of "optimal stimulation level," as described by Berlyne. Zuckerman, et al., were involved in sensory deprivation research at the time, generally with college students, and were interested in developing a measure which might predict the behavior of subjects in the sensory deprived conditions. Fifty-four items were written in a forced choice format, with an attempt being made to make both choices socially desirable. These items were administered to 268 male and 277 female undergraduate 33 students, and four items were dropped because of the extreme splits shown in endorsing them. The remaining 50 items were subjected to a factor analysis, and one large factor did emerge for both males and females, with a sub- stantial amount of overlap between the two. In total, 34 items were retained after this factor analysis, with 22 of these items being identical for both men and women. In further work, scores on the SSS were compared to those scores on the Embedded Figures Test for field dependence and independence, and a significant correlation was found between the SSS and field independence. The authors sug- gest that this is due to heightened sensitivity to internal sensations. They also found the SSS to be nega- tively related to a measure of anxiety, but in this writer's opinion the reliability of the anxiety measure is questionable, and in fact we will see below that this result has not been replicated. Zuckerman, Persky, Hopkins, Murtaugh, Basu and Schilling (1966) found scores on this version of the SSS to be significantly and positively related to the MMPI scales of F, Psychopathic deviate, and Hypomania. Scores were also positively related to the amount of movement observed of subjects during a sensory deprivation experience. One year later, Zuckerman, Schultz and Hopkins (1967) published results of research relating the SSS to choice of volunteering for sensory deprivation and hypnosis experi- ments. They found that undergraduates who volunteered for 34 both these types of experiments scored significantly higher on the SSS than those who did not volunteer for the projects. They also reported no relationship between the SSS and the Taylor Manifest Anxiety Scale. That same year, Farley (1967) presented some work on the social desirability factors involved in the SSS. As might be recalled, the items were written in such a manner as to reduce the variability associated with social desirability. Farley found that no significant amount of the item variance on the SSS could be accounted for by social desirability factors. In some factor analytic work also included in this study, he suggests that the SSS does not constitute a unitary concept, and there appeared to be several components, or factors, which although related were not identical. In response to this last finding, Zuckerman and Link (1968) factor analyzed the original 50 items, resulting in four factors for both men and women, with the first two for each sex showing significant overlap with the opposite sex scale. The last two factors for both sexes were difficult to interpret. In this study they also correlated total SSS scores with the MMPI, the Edwards Personal Preference Schedule (Edwards, 1953), Cough and Heilburn's Adjective Check List (1965), and Witkin's Embedded Figures Test (1950). Again, a significant positive relationship was found between the SSS and the Hypomania scale on the MMPI. In addition, positive significant relationships were found 35 between the SSS and the scales of autonomy, change, and exhibitionism, and negative significant relationships with scales of deference, nurturance, orderliness and affilia- tion (from the Edwards). The SSS was found again to posi- tively correlate with field independence, and again to show no relationship with the Taylor Manifest Anxiety Scale. This same year Kish and Busse published the results of their investigation of some correlates of the SSS. They found it to be negatively related to age (p<(.01), and positively and significantly related to intelligence, with increased SSS variability found at higher intelligence ranges. In a brief study at about the same time (Farley and Farley, 1967), the SSS was related to scores on Eysenk's measure of extroversion. A significant positive correla- tion was found between extroversion, and the SSS. High scores on the SSS were also reported to be associated with higher usage of drugs, alcohol, and a greater variety of sexual experiences, in a college popula- tion (Zuckerman, Neary and Brustman, 1970). In 1971, Zuckerman attempted again to delineate sub- scales within the SSS. As the first attempt at this had been hindered by the small number of items, 63 new items were written and added to the original 50 items. These items were administered to 332 undergraduate students, and the first four factors retained, these four accounting for 23% of the variance. Briefly, these four factors were 36 labeled Thrill and Adventure Seeking, Experience Seeking (Zuckerman terms this a "hippie" factor, or experience for experience's sake), Disinhibition (Zuckerman uses the term "swinger" to describe this) and Boredom Susceptibility. Continuing investigation of these four factors (Zuckerman, Bone, Neary, Mangelsdorf and Brustman, 1972) shows that these four factors are not independent of each other, but show enough difference to correlate differently with other variables. Experience Seeking and Disinhibition showed a positive correlation with the MMPI scale of Psychopathic deviate for both men and women, while_the other two factors did not. For man, only Experience Seek- ing correlated significantly with the MMPI F scale, while for women all the factors showed this pattern. The overall SSS again showed a positive significant correlation with the MMPI Hypomania scale. Also, once again a positive correlation was found between the overall SSS and drug and alcohol usage as well as variety of sexual experience. In comparing SSS scores with Cattell's 16 PF Questionnaire, Zuckerman, et al., state, "The pattern of correlations of 16 PF scales related to sensation seeking in the present study suggests a dominant, impulsive, nonconforming type of extraversion rather than the 'good-natured, cooperative, attentive, soft-hearted, trustful, adaptable, warm-hearted' kind of extraversion" (pg. 314). This description of the sensation seeker is similar to definitions offered of the psychopathic personality, and 37 Blackburn (1969) attempted to clarify this similarity. He found a significant positive correlation between scores on the SSS and the MMPI scale of Psychopathic deviate with a population of patients admitted to a maximum security hospital. However, when he compared individuals of this population diagnosed as psychopathic with those not given that diagnosis, he found no differences in their SSS scores. His suggestion was that this lack of findings was due to problems in diagnosis, and that in reality many of the so-called "secondary” or neurotic psychopaths were included in the psychopathic diagnostic category, and may have nega- tively affected the results. In conclusion, we might say that the high sensation seeker, as measured by this instrument, is likely to be impulsive, somewhat antisocial, extroverted, young in age, likely to volunteer for unusual experiments, to have had greater experience with drugs, alcohol and sex than his lower scoring peers, of average or above average intelli- gence, and quite active. In spite of the attempts to divide this instrument into separate scales, the most supported and reliable evidence is on the instrument as a whole, and further work on the separate factors would have to be done to justify their use as dependable measures (primarily because they account for such a small portion of the variance in the measure). And while this appears to measure one aspect of novelty seeking, there are clearly areas which remain untapped; the most readily apparent 38 being the seeking of novelty which originates internally. The more recent trend has been to think of novelty and sensation seeking in multidimensional terms with the limita- tions of single dimension measures being highlighted (Langevin, 1971, 1976). Pearson's Novelty Experiencing Scale Addressing the limitations of unidimensional measure- ment is Pearson (1970, 1971). In the first of these articles she introduced her Novelty Experiencing Scale (NES), which, unlike the SSS, was developed as a multi- dimensional scale. She defines the tendency toward novelty as a tendency to approach versus a tendency to avoid novel experiences" (Pg. 199), and novelty as " a function of the discrepancy between an individual%; past experience and the present one" (pg. 199). Her work has resulted in a paper and pencil measurement device to assess the degree of desire for novelty in four areas, differing in source of stimuli desired; external or internal, and sub- jective quality of the stimuli; sensation feeling, or cogni- tion. This 2 x 2 design results in four categories: external sensation, internal sensation, external cognition, and internal cognition. These are defined as follows: a. External Sensation - a tendency to like (vs. a a tendency to dislike) active, physical partici- pation in 'thrilling' activities. b. Internal Sensation - a tendency to like (vs. a tendency to dislike) the experience of unusual dreams, fantasy, or feelings which are internally generated. 39 c. External Cognitive - a tendency to like (vs. a tendency to dislike) finding out facts, how things work, and learning how to do new things. d. Internal Cognitive - a tendency to like (vs. a tendency to dislike) unusual cognitive processes which are focused on explanatory principles and cognitive schemes. (pg. 201) In addition, she constructed a lO-item Desire for Novelty scale, which measures the " . . . wish for new experience and acknowledgment of the boring nature of the status quo . . . ” (pg. 201). The subject responds to the first four scales (20 items each) in a like or dislike format, and the Desire for Novelty scale in a like-me or unlike-me format. In this first paper, using a sample of all male servicemen, she found that the five scales had good relia- bilities (ranging from .76 to .87) and did not correlate very highly with each other, with the exception of Internal Cognitive and External Cognitive (we will see these results replicated below). She compared the NES with the general SSS and found that this correlated significantly with the External Sensation scale (r = .68) and moderately with Internal Sensation (r = .2). She presents further scale data in the second publica- tion (1971). Again reliabilities were good (.70 to .86) and the result of External Cognitive and Internal Cognitive showing the highest inter-correlation is repeated. An adjective check-list which contained five adjectives hypothesized to correlate with each of the four scales In 40 showed generally positive correlations with the appro- priate novelty seeking scale, and not with other scales. Correlations with Rotter's Internal-External scale showed a significant negative correlation between external control and both cognitive scales, and no relation to the sensation scales. Interestingly enough, the bulk of the validity and reliability work on this has not been done by Pearson, but by other researchers. Coursey and Gaines (1974) conducted a factor analysis of the scale with 135 male and female subjects. They concluded that there is strong support for viewing the subscales as separate dimensions. In another publication (Gaines and Coursey, 1974), they found adequate internal and test-retest reliabilities for the four novelty seeking scales. Also found were significant correlations between the Internal Sensation and External Sensation sub- scales and the SSS (.39 and .55 respectively). In 1975, Kohn and Annie presented another factor analytic study of this instrument. They too found (with a sample of 430 male and female Canadian high school students), the five dimensions to be relatively unrelated, with sub- scales sharing a source (either cognitive or sensation, and either internal or external) to be more related than sub- scales which did not share this commonality. Their evidence was also for the separateness of the scales on a factor basis, although the evidence is stronger for men than for women. (This supports attending to sex differences in the 41 use of this scale.) Again, good reliabilities were found. On the basis of gender differences in our culture, the authors hypothesized that men would score higher on the external scales (both cognitive and sensation) and women would score higher on the internal scales. These hypotheses were supported. Waters (1974) administered the NES and the SSS (with its subscales) to 368 undergraduate students, and found again that the NES subscales were correlated moderately with each other. Again External and Internal Cognitive showed the most relatedness (.44 for females, .54 for males). External Sensation was again found to correlate signifi- cantly with the general SSS scale, and with the Thrill and Adventure Seeking subscale of the SSS. In a comparison with SAT scores, male scores on Internal Sensation, External and Internal Cognitive showed a low but significant corre- lation with SAT-verbal. This relationship was not found for women, and neither male nor female scores correlated significantly with SAT-math scores. Water's data supports the earlier stated recognition that men and women tend to score differently on the NES, and that this difference should be kept in mind when using the instrument. In a follow-up article, Waters (1976) conducted a similar investigation using 275 pre-flight students (all male). Again, she found significant correlations between the External Sensation subscale and the overall SSS and the Thrill and Adventure Seeking subscale. She also found 42 no relationship between scores on the NES and ability measures, or course grades. Supporting the validity of the scale, she found the flight students to score higher than the previously mentioned male college students on External Sensation and External Cognition, as well as on the Thrill and Adventure seeking subscale of the SSS. She also reports that the External Cognitive subscale was significantly related to a measure of social desirability, a correlation which was much higher (.34) than that found by Pearson in 1971 (.10). At this time, there is strong and replicated support for seeing this scale as adequately reliable, for expect- ing men and women to score somewhat differently on it, and for seeing results on it as not an artifact of intelligence, ability or academic achievement. Consistently, one finds the subscales to be measuring relatively separate dimensions, and the External Sensation subscale is always found to correlate significantly with the SSS, in its total form, and with the Thrill and Adventure Seeking subscale. There is also a fair amount of support for the validity of this instrument. This scale, therefore, offers in a reliable and valid context, something that no other measur- ing device in this area has shown before: a way to measure separate dimensions of novelty seeking. It is not surprising, therefore, that this instrument has been utilized in research in other areas. The subject area in which it has received the most use is in research 43 about drug use, and here the results are fairly consistent. Victor, Grossman and Eisenman (1973) studied high school students and found that increased marijuana use was signi- ficantly related to the Internal Sensation scale on the NES, but to none of the other scales. Students who reported using various drugs in addition to marijuana also scored higher on this scale than students who used only marijuana. Kohn and Annis (1977) studied drug use patterns in high school seniors in Canada and found that the Internal Sensation scale was significantly related to the use of tobacco, alcohol, and marijuana, the latter relationship found for males only. They offer the explanation of different social norms for men and women to explain this last result. In addition, they offer further support for the reliability and separateness of the NES subscales. Moving away from high school students, Kohn, Barnes, Fishlinsky, Segal and Hoffman (1979), studied clients in a methadone clinic. In comparing these clients to matched samples without a history of drug use, they found that the methadone clients scored significantly higher on the Desire for Novelty subscales, and marginally higher on the External Sensation subscale. Further relationships were delineated by Kohn, Barnes, and Hoffman (1979). They studied 269 male inmates of a Canadian correctional facility, the mean age of these subjects being 18.8. A multiple regression analysis with 44 drug use as a single criterion and the NES subscales (as well as one additional measure) as the predictor variables showed that Internal Sensation, External Sensation and Desire for Novelty made significant positive contributions to drug use, and External Cognitive made a significant nega- tive contribution. The entire set of experience seeking measures accounted for about 12% of the variance in the drug use variable, with Internal Sensation accounting for almost half of this amount by itself. Again, therefore, one finds that an attraction to unusual states of consciousness contributes significantly to the use of drugs. Finally, one finds a study by Eisenman, Grossman and Goldstein (1980), in which 278 male and female college students were the subjects. They found that the only sub- scale significantly related to marijuana use in this sample was again Internal Sensation, with this relationship being significant at the .0002 level (one-way ANOVA). In addi- tion, they found that Internal Sensation was significantly and positively related to a measure of creativity (the Personal Opinion Survey, Eisenman, 1968, 1969) as well as finding a significant positive relationship between that subscale and adventuresomeness, also measured by the Personal Opinion Survey. In other areas of research the NES has been used to a lesser extent. The following are offered as examples of the breadth of use of this scale. 45 In 1974, Schwartz and Gaines published a study investi- gating self-actualization tendencies. In their sample of college students, they found that self-actualization was related significantly to overall scores on the NES, but not to any particular subscale. Dickstein (1975), with a sample of college females, found that the Internal Sensation subscale differentiated between low, medium and high groups on a measure of death concern, with the highest group on death concern also being the highest scorers on Internal Sensation. She explains this relationship as being a possible result of both death concern and internal sensation reflecting a heightened awareness of the body, and/or a heightened concern with death leading to more immersion in the experiences of the moment. Coursey and Frankel (1977) attempted to find differ- ences between chronic insomniacs and normals in the area of desire for fantasy. They postulated that insomniacs' tendency to worry and ruminate while trying to sleep might show up as a higher score on the Internal Sensation scale. Contrary to hypothesis, they did not find any differences between these two groups. They conclude that the anxious worrying of insomniacs does not represent a need for internal stimulation, but is a method for handling life experiences. The writer might also add that the small number of sub- jects (13 in each of the two groups) could have contributed to the lack of results. 46 In another area, Fisher (1980) studied the sexual behavior of a sample of 35 black women. The bulk of this project does not address issues which are relevant here, but he did find that a preference for vaginal stimulation (as opposed to clitoral) was negatively related to the External Sensation subscale. This supports his hypothesis (from previous research) that a preference for vaginal stimulation speaks to a woman's dislike of intense stimula- tion, because it is likely to increase her anxiety. He suggests that this type of woman is likely to "mute" her experiences, to allay anxiety, and a negative relationship with External Sensation is consistent with this formulation. Novelty Seeking and Curiosigy At this point, some clarity is needed on the rela- tionship of the concept of novelty seeking to curiosity. They are very closely related, although novelty seeking may be seen as only one, albeit a very important, aspect of curiosity. Webster's (1970) defines curiosity as a ”desire to know,‘ and an "interest leading to inquiry" (pg. 204). Even in this brief definition one can see two components; the desire to know more about an object or experience, and the action needed to implement this desire. A third component is introduced in this definition offered by Maw and Maw 1964) in their investigation of elementary school children. A curious child is one who: 47 1. Reacts positively to new, strange, incongruous, or mysterious elements in his environment by moving towards them, by exploring them, or by manipulating them. 2. Exhibits a need or desire to know more about him- self and/or his environment. 3. Scans his surroundings seeking new experiences. 4. Persists in examining and exploring stimuli in order to know more about them. (p. 2) This might be summarized by describing the curious individual as someone who has a need to know more about himself and his surroundings, who is active in pursuing that desire, and who displays persistence in this activity. A similar definition is proposed by Berlyne (1960) for what he terms "epistemic curiosity." This he described, as the reader might recall, as an arousal which motivates a quest for knowledge and is relieved when the knowledge is gained and the conflict reduced. This includes the desire to know, and implies the activity and persistence which is necessary for that desire to be satisfied. Therefore, the following definition of a curious individual is offered: one who has a desire or a need to know more about himself and/or his environment, who is able to pursue this desire through whatever channels are fruit- ful, and who is able to persist in this quest until the desired end is reached. This definition includes three important areas: the desire to know, the ability to be actively involved in this knowing, and the ability to persist in the activity. 48 Novelty seeking most clearly addresses the first of these components: the desire to know more about the self and/or the surroundings. With a paper and pencil measure such as Pearson's Novelty Experiencing Scale, we cannot directly measure the second two aspects of activity and persistence, but we are likely to tap into the more passive expressed desire to know about and experience novel or new experiences. While this does not, therefore, cover all the proposed components of curiosity, it does address what might be thought of as the starting point for an explora- tory endeavor: that initial interest and attraction which must be there for any action to be brought into play. This interest should not only precede action, but should have an impact on the direction of the action, and be one of the motivating forces behind both the choice of action, and the level of persistence. Therefore, in the following we will distinguish between curiosity and novelty seeking, but the general hypotheses stated earlier relating to curiosity should also hold for novelty seeking, in that novelty seek- ing must be present before the entire sequence we are defining as curiosity is possible. Throughout this discussion we have referred to measur— ing aspects of personality having to do with flexibility vs. rigidity, reality orientation vs. reality distortion and coping vs. defense. Let us now move on to considering these variables, and the manner in which they might be measured. 49 The Ego, Defense and Coping Early conceptualizations of the ego focused on its defensive and mediating functions; the manner in which it attempted to balance id impulses and reality constraints and protect itself from painful and threatening feelings and thoughts emerging from the id. Not present at birth, the ego was thought to develop out of conflictual situa- tions. Its defense mechanisms, which develop in this manner, serve the function of restricting the experience of anxiety, and of transforming id impulses into expressions which are less threatening. In this way, defenses con- tribute significantly to the formation of neurotic symptoms, which are thought of as imperfect and incomplete solutions to the conflict between id impulses, and the ego's need for restriction of these impulses. Initial study of these mechanisms, using as it did the study of neurotic individuals, focused largely on the maladaptive aspects of defense, and ego functioning. Hartmann (1958) comments, "The close connection between theory and therapeutic technique, so characteristic of psychoanalysis, explains why the ego functions directly involved in the conflicts between the mental institutions commanded our interest earlier than others" (pg. 7). This view of ego functioning has been expanded more recently by additions from ego psychologists. Hartmann (1958) introduced the idea of a conflict-free ego sphere, in which ego functions develop not as a result of conflict 50 and its various resolutions, but as a natural part of the maturation process. He states, "We must recognize that though the ego certainly does grow on conflicts, these are not the only roots of ego development" (Pg. 7-8). He continues, . we must not forget that the individual's drive constitution is not his only inborn equipment, that is, not the only 'given' . . . The human individual, at his birth, also has apparatuses, which serve to master the external world" (pg. 50). The outcome of this viewpoint is an emphasis on studying healthy aspects of personality, and the coping abilities of the ego, in addition to its defensive functioning. as "A concept of health which is conceived solely as the negative of neurosis and disregards the state of the conflict-free sphere is too narrow, if only because without taking this sphere into account, the concepts of ego strength . . . and equilibrium cannot be satisfactorily delineated" (Hartmann, 1958, pg. 81). This comment reminds one of the criticism leveled at the medi- cal model definition of health as the absence of disease; an issue which has been at least somewhat addressed in the newest edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (1980). The focus on healthy functioning can be found elsewhere as well; for example, Blanck and Blanck (1974) present a method of psychiatric evaluation which includes attending to the developmental hurdles over- come, and the adaptive abilities which have developed at a normal and healthy pace, to show a more complete picture of 51 of the individual when combined with the areas in which he has deficits. Also in this early work of Hartmann's, he states " . we may also speak about two aspects of the ego process, since, for instance, it is often one and the same process which we study first in its relation to the internal conflict and then in its dependence and effect on the apparatuses of reality mastery” (pg. 16). To expand and add needed detail to this idea, Haan (1963) and Kroeber (1963) introduced a theoretical system which includes both defensive (related to internal conflict) and coping (related to reality mastery) aspects of ego function- ing. Noting that sublimation is the only "defense" mechanism which had previously been seen as a positive function, they suggested that sublimation be categorized as a coping function and they postulated that there were corresponding coping processes for each of ten defense processes (cautioning that there could well be more than the ten included in their system). Haan states that " the mental processes involved in the various c0ping mechanisms and the classical defense mechanisms are identi- cal. It is on the basis of the properties, rather than the process of each that the distinction between coping and defense mechanisms is drawn" (pg. 1). Therefore, ten under- lying generic processes are offered in this theoretical formulation, with a coping and defense mechanism subsumed under each. 52 .Again in this initial paper, Haan lists the proper- ties of defense and coping mechanisms. Defense mechanisms are characterized by rigid and automatized behavior, decision making and behavior which is dictated at least in part by past experience, distortion of the present reality, magical thinking, a significant component of primary process thinking and unconscious motivation, and impulse satisfac- tion by subterfuge. In contrast, coping mechanisms include active choice, flexibility, behavior which is oriented towards the future and taken into account needs of the present, the ability to perceive current situations in a realistic manner, and behavior which allows impulse satis- faction and expression in open and ordered ways. For assistance in conceptualizing the ten processes, they have been divided into four categories (Haan, 1977). Under the label Cognitive Functions, one finds the three generic processes of discrimination, detachment, and means-ends symbolization. Attention Focusing Functions include as the sole member selective awareness. Reflexive- intraceptive Functions refer to the reflective engagement of the individual with his or her own thoughts, feelings and intentions, and these include sensitivity, delayed response, and time reversal. The final category is Affective-impulse Functioning, that is, the regulating process of expression of feelings and desires, and this covers the generic processes of impulse diversion, impulse transformation, and impulse restraint. 53 Along with a coping and defense mechanism, each generic process is also associated with a fragmentation process, these being added later in the theory (Haan, 1969). These fragmentation processes roughly correspond to a more psychotic manner of functioning, and are characterized by the individual's 'giving up, putting himself in the hands of others, and presenting himself as one who is help- less, young and incompetent" (P8. 23). These are mentioned here for the sake of completeness, although they will not be addressed in further comments or in the research proposed. The ten ego processes, and their coping, defend- ing, and fragmentation counterparts are listed in Table 1. Because the model is one which is tied to processes, and not outcomes, there is no clear causative relationship assumed between coping and health, or defense and disease. Haan instead assumes that in general, ceping is associated with effective reality oriented behavior, and that again in general, defense is associated with more rigid, past determined and reality distorting activity. In other words, use of one process over the other increases the likelihood of certain types of behavior and outcomes, but certainly does not guarantee it. The focus on process is vital according to Haan, and in her 1969 publication she states, "Since the model does not employ criteria that must be referred to social definitions of effectiveness in a particular society, it can be seen as an attempt to avoid being culturally 54 Rama .cmmm scum ofimmcew .cofiumwfiamcomumomo oowmmoummm :ofimmouoaom ucfiwuumom oowumcuouam maneumc: coaumsuom COHuomom oofiuaufiuwnsm oofiumeuowmanuH coaumasooooud o>fiuoomw< unmEoonHamHQ cowumefiansm sowmum>fia mcowuwauwou omauoEHIm>fiuommm< coaumxflm .aowuonuuwan anacon coaumuucmuooo mmmcoumsm o>wuuoaom macauoc=w wchSUOMIcoflucmuu< :owumwoooaoumm cowmmmuwmm owmncowmmouwom scamuo>mu mafia Hmcofimsaoo cowuoomoum asunoEm mufi>wuwmcom coaumwwaflaoeeH unooa zuwswwnEm mo mesmHMHOH uncommou poamaon mGOAuocsm o>Huooomuucfino>fimemmm coaumaunmmcoo :owumuwanoofiunm mammamom Hmowwoa coaunwfiaonESm nominees: mamfiwoaoo: .mpmamm vuoz wcfiNHHmsuooHHMuoH >uHHm=uuoHkuoH uooESUmumo Emfiuouocoo :ofiuoaomH >ua>wuuonno defiumcwefiuomfia mcowuocsm m>fiuaowoo ooHumucoEwmum snowmen wofimoo mono: mommmooum ownoomu mmwmooopm owm mo SEocome .H canoe 55 bound or, even more intolerably limited, subculturally bound in a heterogeneous society" (pg. 16). Since the introduction of this model, several attempts have been made to quantify the concepts for measurement purposes. The earliest method was using judges' ratings of each of the 20 coping and defense variables, e.g., Haan (1963). Aside from the time-consuming aspect of this method, the realiabilities of the various scales assessed in this manner ranged from adequate to very low. Overall, the reliabilities for women tended to be lower than those for men. In an attempt to produce a more efficient, and hope- fully more reliable way of assessing these variables, Haan (1965) used the aforementioned clinical ratings to develop a paper and pencil instrument derived from the MMPI and CPI inventories. Her hypothesis was that the MMPI items would be more effective in distinguishing defense variables, and the CPI items more effective with the coping processes, and this hypothesis was born out. Kuder-Richardson reliabili- ties calculated fbr these 20 scales showed a range from a low of .48 for tolerance of ambiguity to a high of .85 for concentration. The mean reliability for all scales was .70. Preliminary validity data from this study showed that 13 of the 18 standard CPI scales were significantly corre- lated with the Total Coping scale (a summation of the 10 coping scales), with the CPI scales of socialization, self control, good impression, communality and feminity showing 56 insignificant correlations. This result she explained by noting that these particular CPI scales are more associated with conformist behavior, and coping involves successful resolution of conflict, which is not necessarily that behavior which would conform to social norms. Results which contribute to the validity data on the MMPI based scales includes some interesting positive corre- lations between the defense scale of doubt and the MMPI scales of anxiety, depressiveness, neurotic constriction, neurotic impulsivity, schizophrenia, paranoia and the F scale. This pattern is reversed for the defense scale of denial, which showed a negative relationship with all the above-mentioned MMPI scales, and a positive relationship with the lie scale, and social desirability. These results she suggests indicate that a person who employs denial is unlikely to admit to difficulties, while the individual of whom doubt is a more characteristic manner of functioning is more likely to be aware of and to admit problem areas. The most recent work on development of a measurement device for this coping/defense model has been presented by Joffe and Naditch (1977). They were also attempting to produce an assessment device based on the MMPI and CPI item pool, but used more sophisticated statistical procedures, and a larger sample than that employed by Haan. In advance of the scale construction, they divided their sample into two groups: a scale construction group, and cross-validation group. Using only this first group, ego ratings by 57 interviewers were correlated with responses on the MMPI and CPI. Twenty-two scores were obtained for each subject: ten coping, ten defense, a summed coping, and a summed defense. Preliminary scales were obtained by successively adding together the highest correlated items one at a time in descending order of the size of the correlation. Approxi- mately 60 items were included for each scale, resulting in about 60 possible scales for each concept, varying in length. The scales which resulted in the best prediction for ego ratings of subjects in the cross-validation group were retained. Cut-off points of .30 for MMPI based scales and .20 for CPI based scales (lower because of the greater number of subjects in this group) were established. Addi- tions were made to these initial scales on the basis of which items would add the most variance to the scale. Contrary to the findings of Haan (1965), Joffe and Naditch found that using the CPI item pool resulted in higher cross-validities for both defense and coping scales, with the exception of the defense scales of projection and regression, and the coping scales of concentration and suppression. For these four, scales constructed with the MMPI item pool were more valid. Validities and reliabili- ties for these newer scales can be found in Tables 2 and 3. To avoid unnecessary duplication, a review of all the studies employing this theoretical model, whether using judges' ratings, the scales devised by Haan, or those developed by Joffe and Naditch, will not be attempted here. 58 Table 2. Validity Coefficients of the Joffe and Naditch (1977) Ego Scales Coping Defense Male Female Male Female CPI based scales Objectivity .29 .25 Isolation .28 .39 Intellectuality .57 .44 Intellectualization .37 .38 Logical Analysis .53 .41 Rationalization - .21 Concentration - - Denial .21 .57 Tolerance of ambiguity .42 .43 Doubt .36 .44 Empathy .34 .22 Projection .42 .24 Regression-ego .38 .32 Regression .31 .39 Sublimation - .23 Displacement .29 .49 Substitution .25 - Reaction Formation .46 .31 Suppression - - Repression .34 .38 Total coping .49 .36 Total defense — .35 MMPI based scales Concentration .82 .64 Projection .36 .49 Suppression .66 .50 Regression .62 .46 59 Table 3. Test-Retest Coefficients for the Joffe and Naditch (1977) Ego Scales Ceping Defense Male Female Male Female CPI based scales Objectivity .70 .61 Isolation .54 .46 Intellectuality .81 .77 Intellectualization .78 .81 Logical Analysis .80 .69 Rationalization .65 .63 Concentration .56 .58 Denial .69 .79 Tolerance of ambiguity .76 .80 Doubt .78 .80 Empathy .59 .75 Projection .73. .61 Regression-ego .67 .78 Regression .74 .69 Sublimation .58 .67 Displacement .82 .71 Substitution .49 .52 Reaction formation .57 .68 Suppression .64 .55 Repression .78 .81 Summed coping .68 .69 Summed defense .68 .58 MMPI based scales Concentration .76 .76 Projection .56 .67 Suppression .75 .71 Regression .74 .75 60 For complete coverage of these studies, the reader is directed to either Morrissey (1977) or Jacobsen (1979). Drawing from Morrissey's conclusions coping has been shown to be positively associated with intellectual functioning and IQ acceleration over time, adult SES, intellectual and affective enjoyment of Rorschach test taking, high ego strength, internal control and moral development, with nega- tive associations shown with obesity, help-seeking, acute adverse drug reactions and problem drinking. On the other hand, defense has been shown to be positively related with male IQ deceleration, low adult SES, measures of psycho- pathological functioning, low ego strength, external control, extremist political attitudes, help-seeking, acute adverse drug reactions and problem drinking (pg. 273). While the evidence is contradictory in places, it is strongly supportive overall of the usefulness of distinguishing between coping and defense. Coping, Defendingand Novelty Seeking The Haan and Kroeber model has several attributes which lend it to the study of novelty seeking. First of all, it is concerned with and focused upon the process of behavior and decision making, rather than its outcome, which, as was argued earlier, is also what appears to be the most productive manner in which to view and study novelty seeking. In other words, more accurate information about novelty seeking is likely to result from viewing it as 61 process, rather than to tie it to various measures of success, which are too closely dependent on social norms and likely to vary from culture to culture. Secondly, the Haan-Kroeber model allows for the measurement of what might be called more healthy or adaptive functioning; functioning that does not deny the certainty of conflict but describes a more realistically oriented and flexible approach to problem solving. Because the general hypotheses presented earlier hinge on the ability to describe and measure adaptive modes of functioning, it was necessary to find an instrument which not only assessed defensive capacities, but also a manner of ego functioning which was more likely to produce successful resolutions of conflict. This the Joffe and Naditch scale does, and in a way which permits a more complex pattern approach. That is, a person can employ defenses in one area, and coping mechanisms in another, or can combine the two. This approach is likely to produce a more complete and accurate picture of the individual because when one measures only the pathological, the positive in man is forced to appear in the guise of error variance, attenuating results (Haan, 1969, p. 25). Thirdly, there is reason to believe that the processes underlying coping and novelty seeking are compatible. White (1959) in his introduction of the concept of competence, is clear about seeing this as a quality which is not the pro- duction of conflict, but instead develops in a conflict-free 62 sphere. This is very like the concept of ego coping mechanism developing outside the area of conflict. Haan comments on her theoretical model in this respect by say- ing, "Its coping aspects are hospitable to the "new" stimulus-seeking motivations inasmuch as curiosity, explora- tion, intrinsic motivation and the like are experience- seeking, self-exposing, and information gathering" (1969, pg. 16). Here she is supporting a positive relationship between coping and novelty seeking, which is one of the basic hypotheses investigated in this study. Specific Hypotheses The reader will recall that two general hypotheses were presented earlier in this paper. The first is that individuals who are more flexible and reality oriented will also have a higher level of curiosity than those people who are more rigid and in need of reality distortion. The second is that individuals who are more flexible will be likely to show curiosity about a range of activities and experiences, whereas their more rigid counterparts will be likely to be curious about only a narrow band of experience, if at all. In terms of the specific measurement devices selected, the Joffe and Naditch scales of coping and defense, and Pearson's Novelty Experiencing Scale, the first general hypothesis is addressed by the following two hypotheses: 63 1. The Summed Coping score will correlate positively with the Desire for Novelty Scale score. 2. The Summed Defense score will correlate negatively with the Desire for Novelty Scale score. To assess the second general hypothesis, flexibility will be defined as interest shown in both a cognitive and a sensation area (both internal, both external, or one of each) and rigidity and constriction by attraction to only one of these areas; either only cognitive, or only sensa- tion. In other words, we are assuming that an individual who scores relatively high in both a sensation and a cogni- tion area is exhibiting some flexibility of personality style, and would therefore be likely to employ coping processes more than defense processes. On the other hand, a person who exhibits interest in only one of the two areas, either only sensation, or only cognition, is assumed to be more rigid, and would be likely to employ defense processes more frequently than coping ones. In testing these hypotheses, it was necessary to make some predictions about specific NES scale patterns in relation to the Joffe and Naditch scales. The two cognitive scales, internal and external, were assumed to be related most strongly to the generic ego processes which have to do with cognitive functioning: discrimination, detachment, and means-end symbolization. External Sensation, from its consistent correlations with the Hypomania scale of the MMPI, and the Thrill and Adventure Seeking subscale of the SSS, is assumed to be related to the generic ego processes 64 of attention-focusing functions; selective awareness, and the affective-impulse regulation functions; diversion, transformation, and restraint. Therefore, the following hypotheses address this formula; taken alone (either only a sensation, or only a cognition scale) the NES scale should correlate higher with the appropriate defensive functions of the generic processes with which it seems logically related than with the coping functions. In the pattern approach, a cross-score (combining a cognitive and sensation scale) should correlate higher with the coping processes of the related Joffe and Naditch ego functioning scales than it will with the defensive processes of that generic group. Scores in each of the four Novelty Experiencing Scales will be rank ordered, with the subject scoring highest being given the rank of ”1," etc. These ranks will then be correlated with the Joffe and Naditch scales to address the following hypotheses: 3. Ranks on External Cognitive will show a signifi- cantly higher positive correlation with the defenses of isolation, intellectualization, and rationalization, than they will with the coping mechanisms of objectivity, intellectuality, and logical analysis. 4. Ranks on External Cognitive will show a signifi- cantly higher positive correlation with the defenses of isolation, intellectualization, and rationalization than they will with the rest of the defense mechanisms. 5. Ranks on Internal Cognitive will show the same pattern as described in hypotheses #3 and #4. 10. 11. 65 Ranks on External Sensation will show a signifi- cantly higher correlation with the defenses of denial, displacement, reaction formation, and repression than they will with the coping mechanisms of concentration, sublimation, substitu- tion, and suppression. Ranks on External Sensation will show a signifi- cantly higher positive correlation with the defenses of denial, displacement, reaction formation, and repression than they will with the other defense mechanisms. Combined ranks on External Cognitive and External Sensation will show a significantly higher positive correlation with the coping mechanisms of objec- tivity, intellectuality, logical analysis, concentra- tion, sublimation, substitution, and suppression, than they will with the defense mechanisms of isola- tion, intellectualization, rationalization, denial, displacement, reaction formation and repression. Combined ranks on External Cognitive and Internal Sensation will show a significantly higher positive correlation with the coping mechanisms of objec- tivity, intellectuality, and logical analysis than they will with the defenses of isolation, intel- lectualization, and rationalization. Combined ranks on Internal Cognitive and External Sensation will show same pattern as described in hypothesis #8. Combined ranks on Internal Sensation and Internal Cognitive will show the same pattern as described in hypothesis #9. CHAPTER II METHOD Subjects The subjects were undergraduate students enrolled in various introductory psychology courses at Michigan State University. One way for these students to acquire extra points towards their term grade in the course is to partici- pate in research projects. All the students who participated in this project received credit which then applied towards their course grade. (Other alternatives for receiving extra credit are available to students who do not wish to participate in research.) Following standard procedure for the use of under- graduate introductory psychology students in research, sign- up sheets were posted in the rooms in which these courses met. On this sign-up sheet the students were informed of the time and place of the research, and the number of points toward their grade which would be granted for their participation. The data was collected at two separate sessions, although each subject participated in only one session. After the students had assembled, they were handed a booklet which contained all the questions, computer-scored answer 66 67 sheets on which to record their responses to the questions, and an information packet, which contained a brief explana- tion of the study, and an informed consent sheet. They were urged to read the latter packet first, and if they agreed to participate, to sign the consent sheet and return that material before beginning the questionnaires. At this point, a few students asked to be excused from the research because they had not been aware of the amount of time required for the project. These students were excused, and left the room at that time. After the consent sheets had been signed, the experi- menter read over the general instructions for the 3 questionnaires, and answered any questions on the procedure. The experimenter then remained in the room during the time the questionnaires were being completed. Questions on pro- cedure were answered at this time, but in the case of questions that dealt with interpretation of a particular question, subjects were urged to make their own decision. The time taken for answering all the questions ranged from about a half an hour, to two hours. Before leaving, sub- jects were given a sheet briefly explaining the purpose of the experiment, along with the experimenter's phone number in case of additional questions. Two hundred and forty-four students completed the questionnaire. Of these, 58 were male, 177 were female, and 9 subjects either did not complete the demographic question of sex, or answered it incorrectly (marking in 68 space number 3, instead of 1 for male, or 2 for female). The majority of subjects were freshman, 155, with 50 being sophomores, 21 juniors, and 11 seniors. One student marked the space designated as "other," and 6 subjects left this question blank. The majority of subjects were also eighteen years old. The average age for all subjects who answered the question of age was 18.54. There were 145 eighteen year olds, 51 nineteen year olds, 26 twenty year olds, and 7 twenty-one year olds. Nine students identified themselves as being over 21, and 6 subjects left this blank. The final demographic question dealt with the financial background of the subjects. The largest group of subjects, 61 in all, identified themselves as being from families in which the annual income was between $35,000 and $49,999. The next largest group, 60 subjects, were in the $50,000 and over category. This was followed by 57 subjects in the $20,000 to 34,999 range, 30 subjects in the $10,000 to $19,999 range, and 21 subjects in the under $10,000 range. Fifteen subjects elected not to answer this question. Materials The questionnaire consisted of three parts. The first, titled "Interest Scale" was the Pearson Novelty Experiencing Scale. This scale has 80 items, to be responded to in a "like me" or "unlike me" format. Directions for this part of the questionnaire instructed students to mark the space 69 "T" for the "like" and ”like me" responses, and "F” for the "dislike" and ”unlike me” answers. The items in this scale were offered in the order suggested by Pearson (1970), and can be found in Appendix A. The second part of the questionnaire was labeled "Personality Questionnaire." This consisted of the 480 items of the California Personality Inventory, presented in the order in which this scale is ordinarily given. After these items were 119 items taken from the MMPI. These were the items which made up the scales Joffe and Naditch (1977) concluded were better addressed by MMPI items: suppression, concentration, projection and regression. No delineation was made between the CPI and MMPI items, and all these items were answered in a "true" or "false" format. This part of the questionnaire is reproduced in Appendix B. The third part of the questionnaire consisted of several demographic questions, asking the subject's sex, age, year in school, and an indication of the financial status of his or her family. This form can be found in Appendix C. CHAPTER III RESULTS The following will be divided into four major cate- gories. The preparation of the Pearson and Joffe/Naditch scales for further analysis will comprise the first two sections. These will be followed by the results of the hypothesis testing, and a section on post hoc analyses. Pearson Scales Scale Characteristics The scale scores for External Sensation (ES), Internal Sensation (IS), Internal Cognitive (IC), External Cognitive (EC), and Desire for Novelty (DFN) were calculated as discussed by Pearson (1970). Responses of ”T" were counted within each of the four scales comprised of 20 items each, and within the DFN scale, which had 10 items. The items were all weighted equally, and scale scores on each of these five variables were assigned for each of the subjects. Reliabilities for the five scales were calculated using the Kuder-Richardson 20 formula, giving estimates of internal consistency. These reliabilities ranged from .76 to .84, and are shown, along with the means and standard deviations, in Table 4. 7O 71 Table 4. Reliabilities, Means and Standard Deviations for Pearson Novelty Experiencing Scales (male and female subjects together) Reliability Mean Standard Deviation ES .81* 12.09 4.10 1C .84 14.02 4.24 IS .76 12.72 3.64 EC .81 9.68 4.30 DFN .79 4.47 2.64 *All numbers rounded to two places Very similar results were obtained in analyzing the reliability for the scales separating the male and female subjects. The reliabilities for men only ranged from .78 to .86, and those for women ranged from..73 to .83. These can be found in Table 5, along with the means and standard deviations of the scales. Intercorrelations of the five Pearson scales were calculated and appear in Table 6. Inspection of this table shows that the correlation between IC and EC is the highest, replicating the results of Pearson (1970, 1971), Waters (1974) and Gaines and Coursey (1974). ’72 Table 5. Reliabilities, Means and Standard Deviations for Pearson Novelty Experiencing Scales Reliability Mean Standard Deviation Males ES .78* 13.28 3.88 IC .86 13.47 4.80 IS .79 12.35 3.99 EC .81 10.88 4.46 DFN .80 4.86 2.76 Femaleg ES .80 11.70 4.00 IC .83 14.11 4.09 18 .73 12.82 3.41 EC .81 9.20 4.16 DFN .78 4.35 2.56 *All numbers rounded to two places 73 Table 6. Correlations Among Pearson Novelty Experiencing Scales Males EC ES 1C IS DFN EC .34* .54** .35* -.23 ES .11 .44** -.05 IC .51** .04 IS .27 DFN Females EC ES IC IS DFN EC .16 .55** .19* -.11 ES .04 .34** .02 IC .34** -.07 IS .04 DFN * p<.01 ** p (.001 74 Rankinngrocedure Scores on the scales of ES, IC, 18, and EC were then ranked, from highest to lowest. Frequency counts for each of the possible 21 scores on each of the scales were found, and each individual was assigned the mean rank for his or her level. For example, if there were four individuals with the score of 20 (the highest possible score) they were each assigned the rank of 2.5, the mean of ranks l, 2, 3, and 4. Scale ES had a total of 21 ranks, scale IC had 20 ranks, 18 had 18, and EC had 21. In those with less than 21 ranks, there wasn't a subject who had scored at one or more parti- cular levels. In the following these scales will be referred to as RES, RIC, R18, and REC in the interest of brevity. Combined rank scales were then formed by adding the ranks for each individual in four combinations: ECIS, ECES, ICIS, and ICES. The signs of correlations using any of these ranked data have been reversed, to add in conceptual clarity (because the highest ranked individuals have the lowest rank score, and the lowest ranked, the highest score). Joffe/Naditch Scales The twenty-two Joffe/Naditch scales based on the CPI were formed separately for men and women, resulting in forty-four scales. In addition, four scales were computed from.MMPI items for men and women separately, resulting in 75 an additional eight scales. The items composing each of these scales are detailed in Joffe and Naditch (1977). Reliabilities were calculated by the Kuder-Richardson 20 formula and can be found in Table 7. The reliabilities for the male scales range from .32 for the MMPI Regression scale, to .86 for the CPI Intellectualization scale. Female scale reliabilities range from .28 for the MMPI Concentration scale, to .80 for the CPI Doubt scale. The reliabilities for the male scales are generally higher than those for the female, and unlike the results reported by Joffe and Naditch, the MMPI based scales are substantially lower in reliability than the same scales calculated using CPI items. Conse- quently, only the CPI based scales were used in further calculations. Testing of Hypotheses The outcome of each hypothesis will be covered below, with males and females taken separately. 1. Hypothesis 1 stated that "the Summed Coping score will correlate positively with the Desire for Novelty scale score." Males - The Pearson product moment correlation Between Summed Coping and DFN was .02, which was not significant. Females - The correlation between Summed Coping and DFN was found to be -.08, which was not significant. Therefore, this hypothesis was not supported for men or women. 76 Table 7. Internal Consistency Reliabilities for Joffe and Naditch Ego Scales Cpplpg Defense Male Female Male Female CPI based scales Objectivity .79* .53 Isolation .78 .54 Intellectuality .79 .64 Intellectualization .86 .50 Logical Analysis .73 .58 Rationalization .83 .62 Concentration .71 .64 Denial .60 .66 Tolerance of ambiguity .82 .67 Doubt .82 .80 Empathy .77 .51 Projection .80- .68 Regression-ego .80 .49 Regression .80 .62 Sublimation .73 .56 Displacement .83 .68 Substitution .78 .50 Reaction Formation .82 .49 Suppression .70 .62 Repression .80 .55 Summed Coping .81 .57 Summed Defense .82 .67 MMPI Based Scales Concentration .61 .28 Projection .36 .31 Suppression .57 .64 Regression .32 .54 * All numbers have been rounded to two places 77 Hypothesis 2 stated that "the Summed Defense score will correlate negatively with the Desire for Novelty scale score." Males - The correlation between Summed Defense and DFN was found to be .32, significant at the .01 level. Females - The correlation between Summed Defense and DFN was .40, which was significant at the .001 level. Results were contrary to prediction and therefore this hypothesis was not supported. These correlations can be found in Table 8, and the correlations which apply to all of the following hypotheses can be found in Table 9 for men, and Table 10 for women. Table 8. Correlations for Pearson Desire for Novelty Scale with Joffe and Naditch Summed Coping and Summed Defense Scales ** p < .001 Males SUMC SUMD DFN .02 .32* Females SUMC SUMD DFN —.08 .40** * p <'.01 78 Table 9. Correlations for Pearson Novelty Experiencing Scales with Joffe and Naditch Coping and Defense Scales (signs of correlations have been reversed) Mglg REC RIC RES RIS ECIS ECES ICIS ICES OBJ .30** .11 .12 .02 .19 .26* .08 .15 INT .20 .10 .17 .11 .19 .22* .12 .18 LOG .23* .04 .14 .02 .14 .23* .03 .12 CON .17 .08 .04 .12 .03 .13 .02 .09 TOL .07 -.16 .17 .02 .05 .15 .09 .01 EMP .05 .10 -.21* .03 .05 -.10 .07 .06 RECS -.15 .00 .02 .11 .02 -.08 .06 .02 SUB .20 .19 .24* .19 .23* .27* .22* .29* SUBS .19 -.08 .04 .13 .03 .15 .12 .03 SUP .10 —.07 -.02 .16 .04 .05 .13‘ .07 ISO .10 -.09 .26* .04 .08 .22* .03 .09 INTZ .14 .Ol .21 .02 .07 .21 .01 .14 RAT .00 .06 .01 .25* .15 .01 .17 .05 DEN .16 .03 .08 .04 .12 .15 .04 .08 DOU -.26* -.12 —.23* .04 .13 -.30** .05 .23* PRO -.04 .07 .20 .30** .17 .10 .21 .18 REG -.19 -.13 .ll .24* .04 —.05 .06 .02 D18 «.12 —.08 .08 .28* .10 -.03 .11 .Ol REA .06 -.22* .15 .24* .ll .13 .26* .06 REP -.31** -.15 , -.19 .06 .14 —.31** .05 .23* SUMC .07 -.01 .06 .08 .01 .08 .05 .03 SUMD -.20 -.21* .20 .13 .03 .00 .05 .03 * p <».05 ** p <:.01 79 Table 10. Correlations for Pearson Novelty Experiencing Scales with Joffe and Naditch Coping and Defense Scales (signs of correlations have been reversed) Female REC RIC RES RIS ECIS ECES ICIS ICES OBJ .20** .27*** .08 .03 .15* .18** .18** .23*** INT .11 .30*** .19** .15* .17** .20** .27*** .33*** LOG .21** .27*** .09 .05 .l7** .20** .19** .24*** CON .17** .26*** .01 .04 .14* .12* .19** .19** TOL .04 .18** .11 .28*** .20** .10 .28*** .20** EMP 02 .13* .00 .21** .15* .02 .21** .09 REGS .01 .05 .14* .24*** .15* .09 .18** .13* SUB .l9** .29*** -.06 .03 .15* .09 .20** .16* SUBS .14* .08 .03 .06 .05 .07 .Ol .04 SUP .00 .14* .11 .04 .03 -.07 .ll .02 ISO -.08 .12* .19** .05 .02 .07 .04 .05 INTZ .05 .23*** .01 .03 .05 .04 .l6* .l7** RAT —.03 -.04 .Ol .12 .05 -.01 .05 -.02 DEN .05 -.03 .00 -.06 .00 .03 -.06 -.02 DOU -.l8** -.l8** -.02 .04 -.09 -.13 -.08 -.14* PRO -.06 -.06 .10 .03 -.02 .03 -.02 .03 REG -.23*** -.22*** .02 .06 -.ll -.14* -.10 -.14* DIS -.08 -.10 .20** .11 .02 .08 .01 .07 REA -.05 -.l4* —.22** -.25*** -.19** -.17** -.24*** -.25*** REP -.22** —.30*** -.15* -.13* -.23*** -.25*** -.27*** -.3l*** SUMC .12 .24*** .07 .08 .13* .13* .20** .21** SUMD -.15* -.25*** .15* .05 -.07 .00 -.12* -.O7 * p 4 .05 ** p < .01 *** p < .001 8O 3. The third hypothesis was stated in the following manner: "Ranks on External Cognitive will show a significantly higher positive correlation with the defenses of isolation, intellectualization, and rationalization, than they will with the coping mechanisms of objectivity, intellectuality, and logical analysis." Males - This comparison is between the correlations for REC and isolation, intellectualization, and rationalization, or ;01, .14, and .00 respectively, and those for REC and objectivity, intellectuality, and logical analysis; .30 (p<(.Ol), .20, and .23 (p<(.05) respectively. Although t-tests between each of these pairs were not significant, the trend is toward reversal of the prediction. Females - Correlations between REC and objectivity, inteIIectualit , and logical analysis were found to be .20 (p< .01),, .11, and .21 (94.01) respectively. Correlations between REC and isolation, intellectual- ization, and rationalization were found to be -.08, .05, and -.03, respectively. Again, the results show a trend toward reversal of prediction, although none of the pairs were significantly different from each other. Therefore, this hypothe— sis is not supported for men or women. 4. Hypothesis 4 stated that "Ranks on External Cogni- tive will show a significantly higher positive correlation with the defenses of isolation, intellectualization, and rationalization than they will with the rest of the defense mechanisms." Males - This hypothesis compares the correlations of .01, .14, and .00 with the rest of the corre- lations between REC and defenses. The reader is directed to Table 9, which shows that the only of these correlations which are significant are nega- tive; between REC and doubt, and REC and repression. The correlations of REC and isolation, intellectuali- zation and rationalization are not higher positive correlations than those of REC with the other defenses. 1Significance of difference between related correlations was measured using the following formula from McNemar (1969): t = (rlz-r13) q/(N-3)(l+r23) 2 2 i 2(1""12 ‘ r13 ' r23 + 2‘12r13r23) 81 Females - This hypothesis compares the correla- tions of -.08, .05 and -.03 with the rest of the REC and defense correlations. The reader is referred to Table 10 for a complete display of these correlations. It can be seen that the only correlations which are significant, those with doubt, regression, and repression, are all nega- tive. Furthermore, the initial correlations of isolation and rationalization are negative, and none of the three are significant. Therefore, this hypothesis is not supported for men nor women. Hypothesis 5 predicted the same relationships for RIC as predicted for REC: that the correlations between RIC and the defenses of isolation, intellectualization, and rationalization would be significantly higher than the correlations between RIC and the coping mechanisms of objectivity, intellectuality, and logical analysis. In addi- tion, it was predicted that RIC would have a significantly higher positive correlation with the defenses of isolation, intellectualization, and rationalization than it would with the rest of the defenses. Males - The correlations between RIC and objectivity, inteIlectuality, and logical analysis were .11, .10, and .04, respectively. Those between RIC and isolation, intellectualization and rationalization were -.09, .01, and .06, respectively. None of these pairs are significantly different from each other. The second part of the hypothesis called for a comparison of the correlations between RIC and isolation, intellectualization, and rationali- zation with the correlations between RIC and the rest of the defenses. Visual inspection of Table 9 indicates that this is not the case. Females - Correlations between RIC and isolation, inteIIectualization, and rationalization were found to be -.12 (p<.05), .23 (p(.001) and -.O4, respectively. They were compared to those corre- lations between RIC and objectivity, intellectuality, and logical analysis, which were .27, .30, and .27. All of these were significant at the .001 level. The difference between isolation and objectivity is significant at the .001 level (t = 3.6371, df = 174), and that between logical analysis and rationalization is significant at the .01 level (t = 3.001, df = 174). However, these differences 82 are in the opposite direction from prediction. The second portion calls for higher positive correla- tions for the variables isolation, intellectuali- zation and rationalization with RIC, than for RIC with the other defenses. Two of these corre- lations were negative, so the only defense inspected for this comparison was intellectualiza- tion. This is positive and significant and is the only one of these defense correlations which is, so this portion of hypothesis 5 is supported in part. This hypothesis is largely unsupported by the results. The only exception is that the correlation between RIC and intellectualization is higher than those between RIC and the rest of the defense mechanisms, for females only. 6. The sixth hypothesis was stated as "Ranks on External Sensation will show a significantly higher positive correlation with the defenses of denial, displacement, reaction formation, and repression than they will with the coping mechanisms of con- centration, sublimation, substitution, and suppression." Males - For clarity's sake, the relevant portion of TEEIE 9 is reproduced below. Coping Defense RES/con .04 RES/den .08 RES/sub .24* RES/dis .08 RES/subs .04 RES/rea .15 RES/sup —.02 RES/rep -.19 *p < .05 None of these pairs are significantly different from each other. Coping Defense RES/con .01 RES/den .00 RES/sub —.06 RES/dis .20 RES/subs -.O3 RES/rea —.22** RES/sup -.1l RES/rep -.15* * p‘<.05 **p ( .01 83 The only defense variable for which a positive correlation was found was displacement, and this is not significantly different from the correla- tion between RES and sublimation. Therefore, this hypothesis was not supported for men nor women. 7. This hypothesis was stated as "Ranks on External Sensation will show a significantly higher positive correlation with the defenses of denial, displace- ment, reaction formation and repression than they will with the other defense mechanisms." Males - For this hypothesis, we compared the corre- Iations of ,08, .08, .15, and -.19 with the rest of the defense correlations. Inspection of Table 9 indicates that this hypothesis was not supported. Females - For this hypothesis to have been supported, tEe correlations .00, .20, -.22, and -.15 would have had to be positive, and higher than the rest of the correlations between RES and defenses. The only of these which was positive was for displacement, and this is not significantly higher than the rest of the defense correlations. Therefore, this hypothesis is not supported for men nor women. 8. Hypothesis 8 stated ”Combined ranks on External Cognitive and External Sensation will show a signi- ficantly higher positive correlation with the coping mechanisms of objectivity, intellectuality, logical analysis, concentration, sublimation, substi- tution, and suppression, than they will with the defense mechanisms of isolation, intellectualization, rationalization, denial, displacement, reaction formation, and repression." To aid in comprehension the relevant portions of Tables 6 and 7 will be reproduced below. Males Coping Defense ECES/obj .26* ECES/iso .22* ECES/int .22* ECES/intz .21 ECES/log .23* ECES/rat .Ol ECES/Con .13 ECES/den .15 ECES/sub .27* ECES/dis -.03 ECES/subs .15 ECES/rea .13 ECES/sup .05 ECES/rep -.31** * p‘<.05 **p< .01 84 While some of these differences are in the predicted direction (logical analysis, objectivity, intellec- tuality, sublimation, substituation) none of them are significantly different from their defense counterparts. Females Coping Defense ECES/obj .18** ECES/iso .07 ECES/int .20** ECES/intz .04 ECES/log .20** ECES/rat -.01 ECES/con .12* ECES/den .03 ECES/sub .09 ECES/dis .08 ECES/subs .07 ECES/rea -.l7** ECES/sup -.07 ECES/rep -.25*** * ‘p < .05 ** p < .01 *** p ( .001 Again, while a few of these comparisons are in the predicted direction (objectivity, intellectuality, logical analysis, and concentration) none of them are significantly different from the other member of their pair. Therefore, this hypothesis is not supported for men nor women. 9. Hypothesis 9 stated that "Combined ranks on External Cognitive and Internal Sensation will show a significantly higher positive correlation with the coping mechanisms of objectivity, intellectuality, and logical analysis than they will with the defenses of isolation, intellectualization, and rationaliza- tion." Males - Here we compared the correlations between ECIS—and objectivity, intellectuality, and logical analysis (.19, .19, and .14) with those between ECIS and isolation, intellectualization and rationalization (.08, .07, and .15). None of these correlations were significant, and there was no significant difference found between any pair of them. Females - These comparisons were between the corre- Iation values of .15 (p<.05), .17 (p<.01), and .17 (p<(.01) for the coping scales, and the defense correlations of -.02, .05 and .05. No significant differences were found between any of these pairs. Therefore, this hypothesis was not supported for men nor women. 85 10. Hypothesis 10 states the following: "Combined ranks on Internal Cognitive and External Sensa- tion will show a significantly higher positive correlation with the coping mechanisms of objectivity, intellectuality, logical analysis, concentration, sublimation, substitution, and suppression, than they will with the defense mechanisms of isolation, intellectualization, rationalization, denial, displacement, reaction formation, and repression." Again, relevant portions of Tables 9 and 10 are reproduced below. Males Coping Defense ECES/obj .15 ECES/iso .09 ECES/int .18 ECES/intz .14 ECES/log .12 ECES/rat .05 ECES/con .09 ECES/den .08 ECES/sub .29* ECES/dis _.01 5 ECES/subs —.03 ECES/rea —.06 ECES/sup -.07 ECES/rep -.23* * p<:.05 ‘ None of these pairs are significantly different from each other. Females Coping Defense ICES/obj .23*** ICES/iso .05 ICES/int .33*** ICES/intz .17** ICES/log .24*** ICES/rat -.02 ICES/con .l9** ICES/den -.02 ICES/sub .16* ICES/dis .07 ICES/subs .04 ICES/rea -.25*** ICES/sup .02 ICES/rep -.31*** * p (.05 ** p (.01 ***p < . 001 For these combinations, the difference was significant between two pairs. Objectivity and isolation correlations with ICES differed at the .02 level (t = 2.4, df = 174). The correlations of logical analysis and rationalization with ICES differed from each other at the .02 level also (t = 2.5485, df = 174). Therefore, this hypothesis was largely unsupported for both sexes. For women, two out of the possible seven pairs of correlations were significantly different, but no differ- ences were found for men. 86 11. Hypothesis 11 states "Combined ranks on Internal Sensation and Internal Cognitive will show a significantly higher positive correlation with the coping meChanisms of objectivity, intellectuality, and logical analysis, than they will with the defenses of isolation, intellectualization, and rationalization." Males - This hypothesis compared the correlation for ICIS with objectivity, intellectuality, and logical analysis: .08, .12, and .03 with those for ICIS with isolation, intellectualization and rationalization; -.03, -.01, and .17. None of these correlations were significant and there were no significant differences between relevant pairs. ‘Females - These comparisons were between the correlations of .18 (p < .01), .27 (p< .001), and .19 (p<(.01) for the coping mechanisms, and -.04, .16 (p;<.05), and .05, for the defense variables. The only combination for which the difference is significant is between objectivity and isola- tion (t = 2.0339, df = 174, p‘<.05). Post Hoc Analyses Joffe/Naditch Scales While no validity study was planned for this study, the lack of significant results suggested some further investi- gation of scale characteristics. When Haan (1963) discussed the concepts of coping and defense, she organized them into four groups, to assist in conceptual clarity. Three of these categories contained more than one function. The first of these is Cognitive Functions, which includes the coping scales of objectivity, intellectual- ity, and logical analysis, and the defense scales of isolation, intellectualization, and rationalization. Likewise, she listed the coping functions of tolerance of ambiguity, empathy, and regression in service of the ego, and the 87 defense processes of doubt, projection and regression, under the title of Reflexive-intraceptive functions. The final category is Affective-impulse regulation, and this includes the coping functions of sublimation, substitution, and suppression, and the defensive processes of displacement, reaction formation, and regression. While these categories were formulated simply on the basis of face validity con- cepts, it is sensible to postulate that there should be some statistical relationship within each category which would be more significant than the relationships between members of different categories. The correlations among members of these three cate- gories were therefore calculated and can be found in Tables 11 through 14. Correlations among members of the same cate- gory are outlined in the tables. Generally, these scales do correlate significantly with other members of their groups, but they also correlate significantly with large numbers of other scales outside their categories. The relationships of individual scales with summed coping and summed defense were also investigated. It is sensible to expect that coping scales would correlate at a higher positive level with summed c0ping, than they would with summed defense, with the opposite pattern being expected for the individual defense scales. Table 15 for men, and Table 16 for women display these correlations. The male c0ping scales all correlate at a significant level with the summed coping scale. The male defense scales 88 Table 11. Correlations Among Joffe and Naditch Coping Scales - Males ~-- 1--.- —.--- -"‘-’h.‘_h— :j—u—v OBJ INT LOG CON TOL EMF REES SEE SEES SC. 9: p<. 05 *fi p<.01 aasp<.001 --Indicates members of same function, as discussed by Haan (1963) 89 Table 12. Correlations Among Joffe and Naditch Defense Scales - Males ISO INTZ RAT DEN DOU PRO RES DIS REA FE? ISO .37** -.06 .36** .27* .13 .h3fififi .01 INTZ .243? -.55*=':* .04 -.15 -.2u='-' .21“? -.51=‘-=’:=': RAT -_Q3 .63*** .58*** .60*** .58*** .10 _36fifi DEN -.27* -.OH -.18 -.25* .19 .07 DOU .38** .62*** .53fififi __06 .ugfifiu FRO .Ssfififi .Ssfififi .17 .27* REG .73*** .06 .u3fififi * p<.05 ** p<.01 *fi*p<.001 —Indicates members of same function, as discussed by Haan (1963) 9%) Table 13. Correlations Among Joffe and Naditch Coping Scales - Females OBJ INT LOG CON TOL EMF RES SUB SUBS U) ass .ssfififi .27*** .33*** .15* .06 .Qsfinfi .13n .60*** .n5*** .51*** .23*** .16* .3h*** .30*** L03 .35*** .28*** .17** ,18** _22a*a _1gna CON .22** .13* -.1u .uofififi _31**fi TOL .27fififi .Qlfiu EMF _26*fi* .QOfifi REGS -.04 -.04 SUP SUB SUBS SUP * p<.05 ** p<.01 ***p<.001 -—-Indicates members of same function, as discussed by Haan (1963) 91 Table 14. Correlations Among Joffe and Naditch Defense Scales - Females ISO INTZ RAT DEN DOU PRO REG DIS REA RE? ISO .11 .16* .21** .19** .27*** .05 .16* INTZ -.1o -.28*** -.06 -.09 -.21** .18** -.uo*** RAT -OQEAAA __56*** _uun** .50*** .51*** .12 _0u DEN -.u0*** -.15* -.30*** _.1g** _15fi _22*n DOU .59fi** .7oaaa -.04, .18** PRO _53*fifil _63fi*fi .12fi .07 REG .59*** -.02 .14* * p<.05 ** p<.01 ***p<.001 --Indicates members of same function, as discussed by Haan (1963) 592 Table 15. Correlations of Joffe and Naditch Coping and Defense Scales with Summed Coping and Summed Defense Males SUMC SUMD OBJ .69*** .15 INT .67*** .20 LOG .77*** .ll 3 CON .3o** .ngnn E a TOL .68*** .09 DC _5 EM? .293 .16 8 9’ REGS 29*' .22* SUB 38%: upfiz' SUBS 37* .16 SUP u7*: .ugkfifi ISO .10 .SO*** INTZ .58*** .02 RAT -.O7 .6ofifih g DEN -.Ol .00 E Rod-J- 8 DOU -.13 .H6""" 0) . 2 PRO - . 10 59“” 3 g REG -.0U 75*.' DIS ‘ 22* 57*** — ~ . p<. 0: REA .03 26' ” p: 3- “**n .331 REP .03 .25 93 Table 16. Correlations of Joffe and Naditch Coping and Defense Scales with Summed Coping and Summed Defense Females SUMC suns OBJ .SEAA _.21* L03 .56** -.12* CON .30** -.u7*fi TOL .52** .OO EMF .k8** -.10 Coping Scales REGS .35** .27fifi SUB .30** -.u8fifl sues .32as __3€** SUP .35** -_5ufifi ISO -.25** .uofifi INTZ .33** -.13 DEN -.27*fi -.1H* DOU -.o2 .ezae PRO -.10 .u7fifi REG .03 - .65** Defense Scales DIS -.13* .65** REP -.30** .25** 94 show the same pattern with summed defense, with the exception of intellectualization, and denial. Female coping scales also show consistently significant correlations with summed coping, and the female defense scales correlate significantly with summed defense, with the exceptions of intellectualiza- tion, reaction formation, and denial. For men, it can be seen that intellectualization correlated higher with summed coping than with summed defense. This is the only instance in which a scale did not correlate significantly with its own grouping and then showed a higher positive correlation with the other. In two cases, the unsigned correlation of coping scales with summed defense is higher than with summed coping: concentration and sublimation. For the female scales, much the same pattern is present. Intellectualization correlates at a minimal level with summed defense, and a significant and positive level with summed coping. Ignoring the signs, the level of relationship for the scales of concentration, sublimation and suppression is higher with summed defense than with summed c0ping. When one inspects the correlations of the individual coping and defense scales, it is therefore not surprising to find intellectualization correlating at a significant positive level with many of the coping scales. For the male scales, these include objectivity, intellectuality, logical analysis, tolerance of ambiguity and substitution, all at the .001 level. With the significance level dropped to .05, these positive correlations include concentration, 95 sublimation, and suppression. For the female scales, intellectualization correlates positively at the .001 level with objectivity, intellectuality, logical analysis, con- centration and tolerance of ambiguity, and at the .05 level with regression in service of the ego, sublimation, substitu- tion and suppression. In addition, there appears to be a similar "crossover" problem with the coping scale of regression in service of the ego. Female scales show this to have a positive cor- relation at the .001 level with rationalization, doubt, projection, regression, and displacement. At the .05 level, one can include intellectualization. For the male scales, a positive correlation at the .001 level can be found between regression in service of the ego and rationalization, and displacement. At the .05 level, this is extended to the correlations involving isolation, doubt, projection, and regression. Other, less patterned unexpected correlations at the positive .001 level are found between substitution and denial for the male scales, and between denial and concentration for the female scales. At the .05 level, in the male scales one finds significant positive relationships between isolation and: objectivity, tolerance for ambiguity and substitution, between concentration and denial, concentration and reaction formation, and between denial and sublimation. Female scale intercorrelations show positive correlations at the .05 level between denial and substitution, denial and 96 sublimation, regression and tolerance of ambiguity, and regression and empathy. Pearson Scales As with Joffe and Naditch scales, no validity analysis was planned for the Pearson instrument. Again, however, due to the lack of results for the hypothesized relation- ships, additional concentration on the instrument appeared to be warranted. Therefore, the relationship of various Pearson scales and portions of the demographic data were investigated. One way analyses of variance were carried out between the five Pearson scales (males and females taken together), and the demographic data of age, education level and sex. Significant relationships were found between EC and educa- tion (p< .001), EC and age (p<.01), EC and sex (p< .01), and ES and sex (p:<.01). In the first two, the Pearson scale scores increased with age, and with level of education, and in the second, males scored higher on the Pearson scales of EC and ES than females. (This latter result replicates the findings of Kohn and Annis, 1975.) Given the significant variance due to sex, the analyses between the five Pearson scales, and the variables of age and education were repeated dividing the groups by sex. For females, significant relationships were found between EC and age (p < .01) and EC and education (p< .01). For males, the only significant relationship found was that 97 between EC and education (p‘<.05). For all three of these, Pearson scales generally increased as the level of age and education increased. CHAPTER IV DISCUSSION In this study, the Pearson Novelty Experiencing Scale and the Joffe and Naditch coping and defense scales were administered to 244 undergraduates. Individuals were assigned ranks on the NES scales, and these ranks were used separately, and in combinations of two (one cognitive, one sensation) in testing the hypotheses. Generally, it was hypothesized that single scale ranks would correlate at a positive level with defense scales, and combined ranks correlate at a positive level with c0ping scales. None of the ranked individual Pearson scales (REC, RIC, RIS and RES) correlated significantly higher with the defensive scales than with the coping, as was predicted. In one case, that of the ranked IC for females, the corre- lations with the coping scales of objectivity and logical analysis were significantly higher than those with the defense scales of isolation and rationalization, contrary to prediction. The Pearson combined ranked scales generally corre- lated higher with coping scales than with defense, although in only three cases was this difference significant, all for female subjects. All in all, three out of 68 comparisons 98 99 were significant in the predicted direction, and two were significant in the direction opposite from prediction. This small percentage of significant results may have been the result of chance variation. The results for the Desire for Novelty scale and the Summed Coping and Summed Defense scales were in contradic- tion to the predicted relationships. The DFN was not related in any significant manner to Summed Coping, and was related positively to Summed Defense, leading one to question whether this scale does indeed just measure the ” . wish for new experience and acknowledgment of the boring nature of the status quo . . . " (Pearson, 1970, pg. 201). This definition can easily be interpreted as some global measure of novelty seeking, which in the context of the theory cited in this study, should be related to coping variables. Kohn et a1. (1979), found that this scale differentiated between clients in a methadone clinic, and subjects with no drug history, with the drug users scoring higher. They interpret this to indicate that these I! individuals want to change their lives funda- mentally . . ." (P8. 981). The results of the current study help us postulate further about the meaning of this scale. While these individuals may indeed wish to change their lives, and feel bored with its current status, another aspect of this constellation may be a reliance on defensive processes in approaching life problems. This interpretation would be 100 consistent with seeing drug use as a defensive and basically maladaptive method for dealing with stress and conflict. Also, if coping involves some flexible and variable approaches to life (Haan, 1969), it is sensible to postulate that a high level of reported boredom may indicate an inability to tackle unsatisfactory life situations in a more coping way, leading to a positive relationship between boredom and defensive approaches. In explaining the general lack of results with the other Pearson scales, we should first take a look at the characteristics of the instruments used to assess novelty seeking, and coping and defensive processes, as there is a possibility that flaws in the instruments contributed to the results. A further look at the Novelty Experiencing Scale does not indicate that there were problems with the validity of this instrument. The means and variances of the individual scales do not vary greatly between the subjects in this study, and those in Pearson's (1970). One-way analysis of variance conducted in this study indicated that the External Cognitive scale significantly increased with educational level for both men and women, and with age for women only. (Inspection of the age variable for men indicates that a restriction of range in age is the most likely explanation for the lack of significance of this ANOVA.) These results are consistent with the meaning of the External Cognitive scale, which Pearson defined as " . . . a tendency to like 101 (vs. a tendency to dislike) find out facts, how things work, and learning how to do new things" (1970, pg. 201). Young people who have chosen to attend college are likely to value this type of interest, and it is sensible to assume that their interest in facts, and in the workings of the world around them would increase as they advanced through the college years. One-way analyses of variance also showed that men scored higher on the external scales, both ES and EC, than women, duplicating the results of Kohn and Annie (1975), who worked with high school students. Their plausible explanation of this difference is that it reflects the socialized gender differences in our culture, and its replication is another contribution to the validity data on this instrument. Finding no serious instrument problems with the NES, let us move on to the Joffe/Naditch coping and defense scales. We will first discuss the scale characteristics found in this study, and then review the other recent work which has been done using this instrument. The first attempt to add to the validity data on this instrument was to inspect the correlations among c0ping, and among defense scales. As these scales have been clustered by Haan (1963) as to general functions (three functions including more than one scale) it was postulated that the scales within each function should correlate more highly with each other than with scales outside that 102 function. Inspection of Tables 11 through 14 indicate that this is not the case. Although many of the functions show high within function correlations, there are many instances of high correlations between scales for which there is no postulated relationship, in some cases higher than the within-function relationships. In addition, the scales in general show very high inter- correlations. They in no way approach independence of each other, a phenomenon noted also by Vickers and Hervig (1981) with the defense scales. They conclude that this high intercorrelation severely limits discriminant validity, and indicates that either the scales, or the constructs underlying them, lack validity. Secondly, this study looked at the relationships of each scale to Summed Coping and Summed Defense, postulating that the defense scales should show a stronger relationship with Summed Defense than Summed Coping, and vice-versa for coping scales. Tables 15 and 16 show that while this is in general the case, for males the defense scale of intellectualization and denial do not correlate signifi- cantly with Summed Defense. For females, intellectualiza- tion and reaction formation do not correlate significantly with Summed Defense, and denial correlates at a signifi- cant negative level with Summed Defense. Furthermore, there is a significant "cross-over" problem with the intellectualization scale for men and women. In both cases this scale correlates at a significant 103 positive level with Summed Coping, and with many of the individual coping scales. Regression in service of the ego also shows a "cross-over" problem, correlating at a signifi- cant positive level with many of the defense scales. As was indicated in the results section, there are also many other correlations which are positive and significant found between coping and defense scales. While Haan (1963) states clearly that defense and coping " . . . are 335 to be construed as being inversely related to each other" (P8. 3), these statistical cross-overs make validity assessment of the instrument very difficult. In other words, if there is not much difference which will emerge statistically between a defense and a coping scale, one might logically conclude that there is not much reason for attempting a distinction in scale construction. And if the theoretical background for the instrument postulates that not much of a difference will be found, it is impossible to make a distinction between the instrument's accurate representation of the true relationship between coping and defense, and a clear problem with validity of the scales. At the very least, one can predict that differences between coping and defense scales of the same underlying process are going to be minor in empirical investigations, with the between scales cor- relations accounting for much of the variance. This was precisely the case in this study. Let us now move on to other studies which have employed the Joffe/Naditch scales, and compare their results to those 104 of the current study. To my knowledge, there have been six other studies which employed this instrument, the bulk of them.published after this study was well underway. Gurwitz, in 1981, published a study assessing the characteristics of individuals who sought psychotherapy as compared to those who did not. One of the instruments he used to assess personality variables was the Joffe/Naditch instrument. Unfortunately, his subjects were obtained from the Berkeley Guidance Study and the Oakland Growth Study, which are the identical subjects used by Joffe and Naditch to construct the scales. Gurwitz does not mention this fact, presumably because he was not conducting a validity study, but it clearly excludes this study from contributing any meaningful validity data on the Joffe/Naditch instrument. Another 1981 study by Kupst and Schulman used only the Summed Coping scale, as well as some other measurement devices, in an attempt to distinguish between families with a leukemic child who coped well and those who did not. The Summed Coping scale was found to be a significant predictor of coping for fathers, but not for mothers, and the authors I! suggest that . more global, theoretical assessment may not be as useful as situation-Specific scales" (P8. 388). In the same year, one finds a study by Vickers, Hervig, Rahe and Rosenman which attempted to find relationships between the Joffe/Naditch scales, and measures of Type A behavior. While they found significant correlations, they are small and of the .20 and .30 order found in this study. 105 They did not compare the coping and defensive counterparts; in other words, did not investigate whether or not there were differences between the coping and defense scores for individuals. There is reason to predict, as mentioned earlier, that this type of comparison would not have been successful. They do mention the high degree of inter- correlation among scales which they found, and warn there— fore that interpretation of individual correlations is difficult. An unpublished study by Jacobsen, 1979, compared the defensive and coping scales of undergraduates who sought psychotherapy and those who did not. He found that the therapy seekers scored higher on doubt, and that the no- therapy group scored higher on denial, sublimation and substitution. None of the other scales significantly differentiated between the groups. He concludes that his study offers only partial supportive validity data for the instrument, which could be the result of the homogeneity of his sample, the relatively young age of his sample as compared to the sample on which the instrument was con- structed, and/or the difficulty in operationalizing the constructs in the coping and defense literature. The other two studies which have used these scales were both conducted by Joffe, either alone (1977), or with another author, Joffe and Bast (1978). The first of these is an unpublished study cited by Jacobsen (19791 in which Joffe used the scales in an attempt to distinguish between 106 certain groups of epileptics. He found that employed males outscored unemployed men on objectivity, concentration, regression in service of the ego, sublimation and substitu- tion, while scoring lower on rationalization, projection, regression, and summed defense. Employed women scored higher on the coping scale of sublimation, and lower on the defense scales of doubt, regression, displacement, and summed defense than unemployed females. The Joffe and Bast study also employed an unusual sub- ject group: blind men. These were divided into three groups: congenitally totally/partially blind men, con- genitally partially sighted men, and acquired totally/ partially blind men. The scales did not differentiate between the employed and unemployed subjects in the first group on any dimension. In the second group, the employed group scored higher on four coping scales, and lower on five defense scales than the unemployed. The third group showed much the same pattern, with employed scoring higher on three coping scales and lower on six defense scales than unemployed. These differences were expressed as signifi— cant differences between mean scores, as assessed by t-tests None of these studies offer supportive validity data for the Joffe/Naditch scales when used with a young, relatively homogeneous population as was employed in the current investigation. The overall results have either been of small magnitude, non-existent, or positive only when used with unusual groups. Even in this latter case, groups were 107 compared with each other on the basis of scores on either coping, or defense scales. The coping and defense scales of any particular generic process were not compared. One might hypothesize that these scales will look more valid, and the results gained look more meaningful, when certain statistical comparisons are made. To this date, there is no study to my knowledge which compares coping and defense scores, taking into account the high intercorrelations, which shows positive results. Presumably, there are at least some individuals who generally employ coping more than defense, and vice-versa, but there is reason to doubt this instrument's ability to detect these types of differences. It is difficult to ascertain, therefore, whether the scales themselves lack validity, whether the theoretical concepts underlying them have limited validity, or whether they are only valid when used with specific populations. Therefore, one explanation for the minimal results found in this study may be this validity problem. In addition, there may have been problems associated with the sample group. This group was much younger than the group on which the Joffe/Naditch instrument was constructed, and that may have had a negative impact on the results. Further- more, there may have been a restriction of range problem with this population. Comparing the variances of the coping and defense scales which were found in this study with those found by Joffe and Naditch shows there are significant differences. For women, eight of the coping 108 scales had significantly smaller variances in this study than did women in the original Joffe and Naditch group, and four of the defense scales also had significantly smaller variances. Four additional defense scales showed trends in that direction. For men the differences are less pervasive, but still present. Three coping scales, and one defense scale had significantly lower variances, and three coping and seven defense scales had lower variances which Hr were not significant. These results again point to the i necessity of validating these scales on other populations. When there were significant differences, they were always in the direction of the coping and NES scale correla- tion being higher than the defense and NES scale correlation. All of the non-significant trends are also in this direction. It is possible that the subjects who endorsed a great number of defense items may not have endorsed NES items, even on a limited basis. In an earlier chapter it was stated that defenders would be likely to be curious about only a narrow band of experiences, if at all. It is possible that the ”if at all” qualifier is the salient one. There are two other possible explanations for the lack of confirmed hypotheses in this study. The theoretical literature supports there being relationships between novelty-seeking and personality styles of coping and defense. However, the specifics of this relationship are not clear, and it may be that the two are related through one or more intervening variables. In other words, the direct 109 relationships postulated in this study may be much further from the truth than the two variables' relationship to each other through other, as yet unsPecified, characteristics. Secondly, the Pearson instrument measures only one aspect of what was earlier defined as curiosity. This definition included attraction to new experiences, action to explore these stimuli, and persistence in that action until the desired results are achieved. The Pearson scales measure only the passively expressed desire to know about different experiences, and does not measure any behavioral characteristics which would include activity and persistence. While desire to know more about novel situations may indeed be the prerequisite for the other two phases, it does not guarantee that the latter phases will be completed. Specifi- cally, it is possible that only certain of the subjects who indicated a high desire to know more about situations would in reality continue the exploration through activity and show persistence in that action. Only a more behavioral assessment of novelty-seeking could answer these questions. Conclusions While the bulk of the hypotheses in this study were not confirmed, that is not necessarily to be construed as meaning that the relationships we were seeking do not exist. Other possible explanations fall into three general cate- gories. The first includes the instrument problems detailed earlier. While the concepts of coping and defense which 110 were operationalized by Joffe and Naditch are intriguing and hold the potential for a more complete explanation of human behavior, it appears that these scales do not as yet have the levels of clarity and validity one would require in order to rely on their results. This could be the result of difficulties in the construction of the instrument, but it could also be related to the problems in operationaliz- ing concepts which, in theory, are very closely intertwined and difficult to distinguish from each other. The second problem area involves sampling issues. We, as yet, have little evidence that the Joffe/Naditch scales are useful with young populations, and indeed, those which might approximate "normal" groups. The bulk of the positive results have been obtained on unusual populations with relatively rare physical conditions. One possibility is that with certain unusual groups, the differences between coping and defense processes are actually greater, giving more power to tests on these groups. Regardless of the reason, the current study employed a population which was relatively homogeneous, and with whom there was a restriction of range in the scores, which would tend to reduce any significant results. This scale needs to be used on a wider group of individuals before we can make some more certain statements about its validity. Thirdly, it may be that the relationships between various forms of novelty-seeking and coping and defensive processes are not as linear, or as simple, as those 111 hypothesized here. One possibly fruitful area of future investigation might be behavioral studies of the steps involved in curiosity, and how the actual behavior evidenced by an individual relates to his belief about how he behaves. In other words, with a paper and pencil self-report instru- ment, we are receiving information about not only passively expressed desires and intentions, but about how a person believes that he would behave in a given situation. That may be quite different from how he actually behaves when this action is assessed by a second party. What we know about the correlates of novelty-seeking behavior is, at this point, quite minimal. Although it is plausible to postulate that curiosity arises from similar processes in the conflict-free ego sphere which produce coping abilities, the precise relationship between these two offsPring is unclear. Further investigations imple- mented to discover the differences between individuals who score at varying degrees on novelty seeking inventories, whether paper and pencil or behavioral, may hold some of the answers regarding the connection of novelty seeking and other personality characteristics. In this manner, we may be able to discover what the intervening variables are, and identify which of these are the most salient. Because the field of curiosity is currently wide open in terms of our understanding, additional information is needed not only for its own sake, but to assist researchers in formulat- ing more accurate and fruitful lines of investigation. APPENDICES APPENDIX A PEARSON NOVELTY EXPERIENCING SCALE 2112 Instructions: Listed below are a series of statements that describe things you might do or experiences you might have. You are to indicate Whether you like or dislike the activity described by the statement, by marking "T" on your answer sheet for those you like, and "F" on your answer sheet for those you dislike. Work rapidly and give your first impressions. Begin onrthe BLUE answer sheet in space #1. 1. Exploring the ruins of an old city in Mexico. 2. Thinking about why people behave the way they do. 3. Letting myself go in fantasy before I go to sleep. 4. Finding out how a carburetor on a car works. 5. Being on a raft in the middle of the Celerado River. 6. Knowing why politicians act the way they do. 7. Losing myself in daydreame when I am bored with what is going on.. 8. Finding out the meanings of words I don't know. 3 9. Riding on a sled in Alaska pulled by huskies. 10. Trying to figure out the meaning of unusual statements. 11. Letting myself experience new and unusual feelings. 12. Learning about a subject I don't know much about. 13. Scuba diving in the Bahamas. 3 14. Thinking a lot about a new idea.‘ 15. Watching a red rose turn blue before my eyes. 16. Learning new facts about World War II. a 17. Being at the top of a roller coaster ready to go down. 18. Thinking of different ways to explain the same thing. 19. Looking through a blue bottle and seeing people inoa dark restaurant. 20. Understanding how a computer works. 21. Sleeping out under pine trees and stars. 22. Thinking about unusual events or happenings.. 23. Having an unusual dream in which I swam underwater for hours. 24. Visiting a factory to see how paper is made. 2s. . 26. 27. 23. 29. 3o. 31. 32. 33. 34. 3s. 36. 37. 3s. 39. 4o. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 45. 47. 4a. 49. so. 51. 52. 2113 Watching a colorful bullfight in Spain. Figuring out the shortest distance from one city to another. Having a vivid dream with strange colors and-sounds. Figuring out how a light meter works. Going on a safari in Africa to hunt lions. Analyzing my own dreams. . Having a dream in which I lived in England in an old, haunted castle. Seeing a glass blowing exhibition and listening to an explanation. Orbiting the Earth in a spaceship. Figuring out why I did something. Seeing a duck with the head of a cat. Reading the World Almanac. . Skiing down a high slope in the Alps. Analyzing my own feelings and reactions. Having a dream in which I seemed to be flying. Planning moves in checkers or chess. Climbing to the top of a high rugged mountain. Thinking about ideas that contradict each other. Dreaming that I was lying on the beach with the waves washing over me. Discovering a difficult word in a crossword puzzle. 1 Riding the rapids in a swift moving stream. Listening to a lecture or talk that makes me think afterwards. Letting my body totally relax and seeing what I feel. Solving a problem involving numbers or figures. Walking into an old deserted house at midnight. Reading books on subjects'that stimulate me to think. Feeling chills run all over my body. I. Figuring out how much it would cost to construct a building. 53. 54. 55. 56. S7. 58. S9. 60. 61. 62. 63. 64. 65. 66. 67. 68. 69. 7D. 71. 72. 73. 74. 75. 76. 77. 7B. 79. 80. lllt Driving a sports car in the Indianapolis 500. Seeing movies after which I think about something differentLy.. Having my feelings change from moment to moment. A Finding out how to unlock the two pieces of a wire puzzle. Diving from a board 50 feet above the water. Discussing unusual ideas. Having a strange new feeling as I awake in the morning. Discovering the villian in a detective story before he is revealed. Riding a wild horse in a rodeo. Reading artifiles in the newspaper that provoke my thought. Experiencing abrupt changes in my moods. Learning how to put a watch together. Steering a sled down a steep hill covered with trees. Thinking about why the world is in the shape it is. Experiencing my feelings intensely. Putting together a complicated picture puzzle. Walking across a swinging bridge over a deep canyon. Analyzing a theory to see if it is a good one. Suddenly feeling happy for no reason at all. Reading a book entitled How Things Work. Swinging on a vine across a river filled with snakes. Figuring out why some event happened the way it did. Focusing inside on the flow of my feelings. Figuring out how many bricks it would take to construct a fireplace. Camping out in a wilderness location. Starting off with a new idea and seeing the ones suggested by the original one. Having a vivid and unusual daydream as I am riding along. Learning how to make pottery. 1155 Instructions: Below you will find a series of statements. If a statement accurately describes how you are, indicate this by marking "T" on your answer sheet. If it does not describe you accurately, mark "F" on your answer sheet. Be sure to answer all the statements. 81. 82. 83. 84. 85. 86. 87. 88. 89. 90. wish something new and exciting would happen. feel that life is boring. wish I were doing something new and different. wish for some major change in my life. often feel that I am in a rut. experience life as just the same old thing from day to day. often wish life were more stimulating. often feel that everything is tiresome and dull. wish I could change places with someone who lived an exciting_life. often wish that life were different than it is. APPENDIX B ITEMS USED FOR JOFFE AND NADITCH SCALES (California Personality Inventory and 119 Items from MMPI) 116 DIRECTIONS: This booklet contains a series of statements. Read each one, decide- how you feel about it, and then mark your answer on the special answer sheet. MAKE NO MARKS ON THE TEST BOOKLET. If you agree with a Statement, or feel that it is true about you, answer TRUE. If you disagree with a statement, or feel that it is nor true about you, answer FALSE. If you find a few quesrions which you cannot or prefer nor to answer, they may be omitted. However, in marking your answers on the answer sheet, make sure that the number of the statement is the same as the number on the answer sheet. 10. ll. 12. l3. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 117 I enjoy social gatherings just to be with people. The only interesting part of the newspaper is the "funnies.” I looked up to my father as an ideal man. A person needs to "show off” a little now and then. Our thinking would be a lot better 03 if we would just forget about words like "prob- ably,” "approximately,” and "perhaps.” I have a very strong desire to be a success in the world. When in a group of people I usually do what the others want rather than make sug- gestions. I liked "Alice in W’onderland” by Lewis Carroll. I usually go to the movies more than once a week. Some people exaggerate their troubles in or- der to get sympathy. People can pretty easily change me even though I thought that my mind was already made up on a subject. I often feel that I made a wrong choice in my occupation. I am very slow in making up my mind. I always follow the rule: business before pleasure. Several times a week I feel as if something dreadful is about to happen. There’s no use in doing things for people; you only find that you get it in the neck in the long run. I would like to be a journalist. A person who doesn’t vote is not a good citizen. I think I would like the work of a building contractor. I have had very peculiar and strange experi- ences. My daily life is full of things that keep me interested. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31 . 32. 33. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. When a person "pads” his income tax re- port so as to get out of some of his taxes, it is just as bad as stealing money from the government. In most ways the poor man is better off than the rich man. I always like to keep my things neat and tidy and in good order. Clever, sarcastic people make me feel very uncomfortable. It's a good thing to know people in the right places so you can get traffic tags, and such things, taken care of. It makes me feel like a failure when I hear of the success of someone I know well. I think I would like the work of a dress designer. I am often said to be hotheaded. I gossip a little at times. I doubt whether I would make a good leader. I tend to be on my guard with people who are somewhat more friendly than I had ex- pected. Usually I would prefer to work with women. There are a few people who just cannot be trusted. I become quite irritated when I see someone spit on the sidewalk. When I was going to school I played hooky quite often. I have very few fears compared to my friends. It is hard for me to start a conversation with strangers. I must admit that I enjoy playing practical jokes on people. I get very nervous if I think that someone is watching me. For most questions there is just one right answer, once a person is able to get all the facts. 42. 43. 45. ‘6. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 61. 62. 118 I sometimes pretend to know more than I really do. It’s no use worrying my head about public affairs; I can’t do anything about them any- how. Sometimes I feel like smashing things. As a child I used to be able to go to my parents with my problems. I think I would like the work of a school teacher. ‘ Women should not be allowed to drink in cocktail bars. Most people would tell a lie if they could gain by it. When someone does me a wrong I feel I should pay him back if I can, just for the principle of the thing. I seem to be about as capable and smart as most others around me. Every family owes it to the city to keep their sidewalks cleared in the winter and their lawn mowed in the summer. I usually take an active part in the enter- tainment at parties. I think I would enjoy having authority over other people. I find it hard to keep my mind on a task or job. Some of my family have quick tempers. I hate to be interrupted when I am working on something. I have sometimes stayed away from another person because I feared doing or saying something that I might regret afterwards. I get very tense and anxious when I think other people are disapproving of me. The trouble with many people is that they don't take things seriously enough. I have often met people who were supposed to be experts who were no better than I. I liked school. I think Lincoln was greater than Washing- too. 63. 65. 67. 68. 69. 70. 71. 72. 73. 74. 75. 76. 77. 78. 79. 80. 81. 82. 83. 85. It is always a good thing to be frank. A windstorm terrifies me. I think I would like the work of a clerk in a large department store. Sometimes I feel like swearing. I feel sure that there is only one true re- ligion. I am embarrassed by dirty stories. I would disapprove of anyone's drinking to the point of intoxication at a party. Sometimes I cross the street just to avoid meeting someone. I get excited very easily. I used to keep a diary. Maybe some minority groups do get rough treatment, but it’s no business of mine. It is very hard for me to tell anyone about myself. We ought to worry about our own country and let the rest of the world take care of itself. I often feel as if the world was just passing me by. When I get bored I like to stir up some ex- citement. I like to boast about my achievements every now and then. I am afraid of deep water. There have been times when I have been very angry. I must admit I often try to get my own way regardless of what others may want. I think I would like the work of a garage mechanic. I usually feel nervous and ill at ease at a formal dance or party. I have at one time or another in my life tried my hand at writing poetry. I don’t like to undertake any project unless I have a pretty good idea as to how it will turn out. 86. 87. 89. 90. 9‘. 92. 93. 94. 95. 96. 97. 98. 100. 101. 102. 103. 104. 105. 106. 107. 108. 109. 119 Most of the arguments or quarrels I get into are over matters of principle. I like adventure stories better than roman. tic stories. I do not like to see people carelessly dressed. Once a week or oftenerl feel suddenly hot all over, without apparent cause. As long as a person votes every four years, he has done his duty as a citizen. Sometimes I think of things too bad to talk about. People often expect too much of me. I would do almost anything on a dare. With things going as they are, it's pretty hard to keep up hope of amounting to something. The idea of doing research appeals to me. I take a rather serious attitude toward ethi- cal and moral issues. I would like the job of a foreign corre- spondent for a newspaper. People today have forgotten how to feel properly ashamed of themselves. I cannot keep my mind on one thing. I prefer a shower to a bathtub. I must admit that I often do as little work as I can get by with. I like to be the center of attention. I like to listen to symphony orchestra con- certs on the radio. I would like to see a bullfight in Spain. I am fascinated by fire. The average person is not able to apprecio ate art and music very well. I can be friendly with people who do things which I consider wrong. I have no dread of going into a room by myself where other people have already gathered and are talking. I get pretty discouraged sometimes. 110. 111. 112. 113. 114. 115. 116. 117. 118. 119. 120. 121. 122. 123. 124. 125. 126. 127. 128. 129. 130. The thought of being in an automobile accident is very frightening to me. \X’hen in a group of people I have trouble thinking of the right things to talk about. I set a high standard for myself and I feel others should do the same. School teachers complain a lot about their pay, but it seems to me that they get as much as they deserve. At times I feel like picking a fist fight with someone. Sometimes I have the same dream over and over. It is annoying to listen to a lecturer who cannot seem to make up his mind as to what he really believes. I don’t blame anyone for trying to grab all he can get in this world. I believe we are made better by the trials and hardships of life. Planning one’s activities in advance is very likely to take most of the fun out of life. I do not always tell the truth. I was a slow learner in school. I like poetry. I think I am stricter about right and wrong than most people. I am likely not to speak to people until they speak to me. There is something wrong with a person who can’t take orders without getting an- gry or resentful. 1 do not dread seeing a doctor about a sick- ness or injury. I always try to consider the other fellow’s feelings before I do something. It takes a lot of argument to convince most people of the truth. I think I would like to drive a racing car. Sometimes without any reason or even when things are going wrong I feel excit- edly happy, "on top of the world." 131. 132. 133. 134. 135. I 36. 137. 1 38. 1 39. 140. 141. 142. 143. 144. 145. 146. 147. 148. 149. 150. 151. 152, 153. 1 54. 120 One of my aims in life is to accomplish something that would make my mother proud of me. I fall in and out of love rather easily. I feel as good now as 1 ever have. It makes me uncomfortable to put on a stunt at a party even when others are doing the same sort of thing. I wake up fresh and rested most mornings. Most people make friends because friends are likely to be useful to them. I wish I were not bothered by thoughts about sex. I seldom or never have dizzy spells. It is all right to get around the law if you don’t actually break it. I enjoy hearing lectures on world affairs. Parents are much too easy on their children nowadays. Most people will use somewhat unfair means to gain profit or an advantage rather than to lose it. I like to be with a crowd who play jokes on one another. I am somewhat afraid of the dark. I have a tendency to give up easily when I meet difficult problems. I would like to wear expensive clothes. I certainly feel useless at times. I believe women should have as much sex- ual freedom as men. I consider a matter from every standpoint before I make a decision. Criticism or scolding makes me very un- comfortable. I have strange and peculiar thoughts. I read at least ten books a year. If I am not feeling well I am somewhat cross and grouchy. I like tall women. 155. 156. 157. 158. 159. 160. 161. 162. 163. 164. 165. I66. 167. 168. 169. 170. 171. 172. 173. 174. 175. 'A person should adapt his ideas and his behavior to the group that happens to be with him at the time. I hardly ever get excited or thrilled. I have the wanderlusr and am never happy unless I am roaming or traveling about. I frequently notice my hand shakes when I try to do something. I feel nervous if I have to meet a lot of people. I would like to hear a great singer in an opera. I am sometimes cross and grouchy without any good reason. Every citizen should take the time to find out about national affairs, even if it means giving up some personal pleasures. I like parties and socials. My parents have often disapproved of my friends. I do not mind taking orders and being told what to do. In school I always looked far ahead in planning what courses to take. I should like to belong to several clubs or lodges. My home life was always happy. Teachers often expect too much work from the students. I often act on the spur of the moment with- out stopping to think. I think I could do better than most of the present politicians if I were in office. I do not have a great fear of snakes. My way of doing things is apt to be mis- understood by others. I never make judgments about people until I am sure of the facts. I have had blank spells in which my activi- ties were interrupted and I did not know what was going on around me. 176. 177. 178. 1 79. 180. 181. 182. 183. 184. 185. 186. 187. 188. 189. 190. 191. 192. 193. 194. 195. 1 96. 121 I commonly wonder what hidden reason another person may have for doing some- thing nice for me. I am certainly lacking in self-confidence. Most people are secretly pleased when someone else gets into trouble. When I work on a committee I like to take charge of things. My parents have generally let me make my own decisions. I always tried to make the best school grades that I could. I would rather go without something than ask for a favor. Sometimes I feel as if I must injure either myself or someone else. I have had more than my share of things to worry about. I often do whatever makes me feel cheerful here and now, even at the cost of some distant goal. I usually don’t like to talk much unless I am with people I know very well. I am inclined to take things hard. I am quite often not in on the gossip and talk of the group I belong to. In school my marks in department were quite regularly bad. Only a fool would ever vote to increase his own taxes. I can remember "playing sick” to get out of something. When I meet a stranger I often think that he is better than I am. I would be ashamed not to use my privilege of voting. 1 like to keep people guessing what I’m going to do next. The most important things to me are my duties to my job and to my fellowman. I think I would like to fight in a boxing match sometime. 197. 198. 199. 200. 201. 202. 203. 204. 205. 206. 207. 208. 209. 210. 211. 212. 213. 214. 215. 216. 217. 218. Once in a while I laugh at a dirty joke. Before I do something I try to consider how my friends will react to it. I would like to be a soldier. In a group of people I would not be em- barrassed to be called upon to start a dis- cussion or give an opinion about something I know well. I have no patience with people who believe there is only one true religion. If given the chance I would make a good leader of people. \X’ hen things go wrong I sometimes blame the other fellow. I like to plan a home study schedule and then follow it. I enjoy a race or game better when I bet on it. I have often found people jealous of my good ideas, just because they had not thought of them first. Sometimes at elections I vote for men about whom I know very little. I like to go to parties and other affairs where there is lots of loud fun. Most people are honest chiefly through fear of being caught. I very much like hunting. I have frequently found myself, when alone, pondering such abstract problems as freewill, evil, etc. I have never been in trouble with the law. It makes me angry when I hear of someone who has been wrongly prevented from vot- ing. In school I was sometimes sent to the prin- cipal for cutting up. I would like to write a technical book. At times I have worn myself out by un- dertaking too much. I think I would like the work of a librarian. 1 love to go to dances. 219. 220. 221. 222. 223. 224. 225. 226. 227. 228. 229. 230. 231. 232. 233. 234. 235. 236. 237. 238. 239. 240. 261 . 122 Most people inwardly dislike putting them- selves out to help other people. I feel uneasy indoors. People have a real duty to take care of their aged parents, even if it means mak- ing some pretty big sacrifices. I would like to belong to a discussion and study club. 1 keep out of trouble at all costs. I usually expect to succeed in things I do. People pretend to care more about one an- other than they really do. Most people worry too much about sex. It is hard for me to find anything to talk about when I meet a new person. I like to read about history. I much prefer symmetry to asymmetry. I would rather be a steady and dependable worker than a brilliant but unstable one. I am apt to show of? in some way if 1 get the chance. Sometimes I feel that I am about to go to pieces. A person does not need to worry about other people if only he looks after himself. We ought to pay our elected officials bet- ter than we do. I can honestly say that I do not really mind paying my taxes because I feel that’s one of the things I can do for what I get from the community. I am so touchy on some subjects that I can't talk about them. The future is too uncertain for a person to make serious plans. Sometimes I just can't seem to get going. I like to talk before groups of people. I would like to be a nurse. The man who provides temptation by leav- ing valuable property unprotected is about as much to blame for its theft as the one who steals it. 242. 243. 244. 245. 246. 247. 248. 249. 250. 251. 252. 253. 254. 255. 256. 257. 258. 259. 260. 261. 262. 263. 264. I am a good mixer. I am often bothered by useless thoughts which keep running through my mind. If I were a reporter I would like very much to report news of the theater. Most of the time I feel happy. I like to plan out my activities in advance. When a man is with a woman he is usually thinking about things related to her sex. I must admit that I have a bad temper, once I get angry. I like mechanics magazines. I must admit I find it very hard to work under strict rules and regulations. I like large, noisy parties. I sometimes feel that 1 am a burden to others. W’hen prices are high you can’t blame a person for getting all he can while the getting is good. I have never deliberately told a lie. Only a fool would try to change our Amer- ican way of life. I want to be an important person in the community. I often feel as though I have done some- thing wrong or wicked. In school I found it very hard to talk be- fore the class. I usually feel that life is worthwhile. I always try to do at least a little better than what is expected of me. \X’e ought to let Europe get out of its own mess; it made its bed, let it lie in it. There have been a few times when I have been very mean to another person. Lawbreakers are almost always caught and punished. I would be very unhappy if I was not suc- cessful at something I had seriously started to do. 265. 266. 267. 268. 269. 270. 271. 272. 273. 274. 275. 276. 277. 278. 279. 280. 281. 282. 283. 284. 285. 286. 287. 288. 123 I dread the thought of an earthquake. I think most people would lie to get ahead. I am a better talker than a listener. At times I have been very anxious to get away from my family. I like science. I often lose my temper. My parents were always very strict and Stern with me. I must admit I feel sort of scared when I move to a strange place. I am bothered by people outside, on street- cars, in stores, etc., watching me. I'm pretty sure I know how we can settle the international problems we face today. Sometimes I rather enjoy going against the rules and doing things I'm not supposed to. I have very few quarrels with members of my family. I have no fear of water. If I get too much change in a Store, I al- ways give it back. I often get disgusted with myself. I enjoy many different kinds of play and recreation. Society owes a lot more to the businessman and the manufacturer than it does to the artist and the professor. A large number of people are guilty of bad sexual conduct. I like to read about science. It is hard for me to act natural when I am with new people. I refuse to play some games because I am not good at them. I have never done anything dangerous for the thrill of it. I think I would like to belong to a singing club. As a youngster I was suspended from school one or more times for cutting up. 289. 290. 291. 292. 293. 294. 295. 296. 297. 298. 299. 300. 301 . 302. 303. 304. 305. 306. 307. 308. There have been times when I have wor- ried a lot about something that was n0t really important. I have never been in trouble because of my sex behavior. I think I would like to belong to a motor- cycle club. I used to like it very much when one of my papers was read to the class in school. Every now and then I get into a bad mood, and no one can do anything to please me. I feel that I have often been punished with- out cause. I would be willing to give money myself in order to right a wrong, even though I was nor mixed up in it in the first place. I would like to be an actor on the stage or in the movies. At times I have a strong urge to do some- thing harmful or shocking. I often get feelings like crawling, burning, tingling, or "going to sleep" in different parts of my body. 1 don’t seem to care what happens to me. Police cars should be especially marked so that you can always see them coming. I am afraid to be alone in the dark. I have often gone against my parents' wishes. \X’e should cut down on our use of oil, if necessary, so that there will be plenty left for the people fifty or a hundred years from now. When the community makes a decision, it is up to a person to help carry it out even if he had been against it. I often wish people would be more definite about things. I have nightmares every few nights. If I am driving a car, I try to keep others from passing me. I have a great deal of stomach trouble. 309. 310. 311. 312. 313. 314. 315. 316. 317. 318. 319. 320. 321. 322. 323. 324. 325. 326. 327. 328. 329. 121+ I have been afraid of things or people that I knew could not hurt me. I would rather have people dislike me than look down on me. I cannot do anything well. Any man who is able and willing to work hard has a good chance of succeeding I hardly ever feel pain in the back of the neck. I must admit I try to see what others think before I take a stand. People should not have to pay taxes for the schools if they do not have children. My parents wanted me to "make good” in the world. I often think about how I look and what impression I am making upon others. When I was a child I didn't care to be a member of a crowd or gang. In a group, I usually take the responsibility for getting people introduced. 1 would be willing to describe myself as a pretty "strong" personality. I almost never go to sleep. 1 do not like to loan my things to people who are careless in the way they take care of them. I have never done any heavy drinking. Voting is nothing but a nuisance. When I am feeling very happy and active, someone who is blue or low will spoil it all. It is annoying to listen to a lecturer who cannot seem to make up his mind as to what he really believes. I find it easy to "drop” or "break with" a friend. I find that a well-ordered mode of life with regular hours is congenial to my tem- perament. It is hard for me to sympathize with some- one who is always doubting and unsure about things. 330. 331 . 332. 333. 334. 335. 336. 337. 338. 339. 340. 341. 342. 343. 344. 345. 346. 347. 348. 349. 350. 351. Everything tastes the same. I often start things I never finish. I could be perfectly happy without a single friend. Education is mo.e important than most people think. I get nervous when I have to ask someone for a job. There are times when I act like a coward. Sometimes I used to feel that I would like to leave home. Much of the time my head seems to hurt ‘ all over. I never worry about my looks. I have been in trouble one or more times because of my sex behavior. Our thinking would be a lot better ofi if we would just forget about words like "prob- ably,” "approximately," and "perhaps.” My people treat me more like a child than a grown-up. Some people exaggerate their troubles in order to get sympathy. In school most teachers treated me fairly and honesrly. I am made nervous by certain animals. I go out of my way to meet trouble rather than try to escape it. I must admit I am a pretty fair talker. I never make judgments about people until I am sure of the facts. I usually try to do what is expected of me, and to avoid criticism. If a person is clever enough to cheat some- one out of a large sum of money, he ought to be allowed to keep it. A person should not be expected to do any- thing for his community unless he is paid for it. Some of my family have habits that bather and annoy me very much. 352. 353. 354. 355. 356. 357. 358. 359. 360. 361 . 362. 363. 364. 365. 366. 367. 368. 369. 370. 37 I . 372. 373. 374. 125 I must admit I have no great desire to learn new things. No one seems to understand me. A strong person will be able to make up his mind even on the most difficult questions. I have strong political opinions. I seldom worry about my health. For most questions there is just one right answer, once a person is able to get all the facts. I dream frequently about things that are best kept to myself. I think I am usually a leader in my group. It is impossible for an honest man to get ahead in the world. I like to have a place for everything and everything in its place. I have never seen a vision. I don’t like to work on a problem unless there is the possibility of coming out with a clear-cut and unambiguous answer. It bothers me when something unexpecred interrupts my daily routine. The future seems hopeless to me. I never seem to get hungry. My home life was always very pleasant. I have had no difficulty starting or holding my urine. I seem to do things that I regret more often than other people do. Disobedience to any government is never justified. I would rather be a steady and dependable worker than a brilliant but unstable one. I have reason for feeling jealous of one or more members of my family. My table manners are not quite as good at home as when I am out in company. I would never go out of my way to help another person if it meant giving up some personal pleasure. J 375. 376. 377. 378. 379. 380. 381. 382. 383. 384. 385. 386. 387. 388. 389. 390. 39‘ O 392. 393. 394. 395. 396. 397. 398. There are certain people whom I dislike so much that I am inwardly pleased when they are catching it for something they have done. I enjoy planning things, and deciding what each person should do. Most of the arguments or quarrels I get into are over matters of principle. I doubt if anyone is really happy. I would rather not have very much respon- sibility for other people. I am known as a hard and steady worker. My mouth feeli dry almost all the time. Success is a matter of will power. I usually have to stop and think before I act even in trifling matters. Most people would be better off if they never went to school at all. It is pretty easy for people to win argu- ments with me. I know who is responsible for most of my troubles. I don’t like things to be uncertain and un- predictable. When I am cornered I tell that portion of the truth which is not likely to hurt me. I get pretty discouraged with the law when a smart lawyer gets a criminal free. I have not lived the right kind of life. I am quite a fast reader. I daydream very little. I have used alcohol excessively. Even when I have gotten into trouble I was usually trying to do the right thing. It is very important to me to have enough friends and social life. I sometimes wanted to run away from home. Once I have my mind made up I seldom change it. Life usually hands me a pretty raw deal. 399. 400. 401. 402. 403. 404. 405. 406. 407. 408. 409. m. 411. 412. 413. 414. 415. 416. 417. 418. 126 At times I have been so entertained by the cleverness of a crook that I have hoped he would get by with it. I think 1 am stricter about right and wrong than most people. Most young people get too much educa- tion. I have had attacks in which I could not con- trol my movements or speech, but in which I knew what was going on around me. I have a natural talent for influencing people. I am in favor of a very strict enforcement of all laws, no matter what the conse- quences. People often talk about me behind my back. I have one or more bad habits which are so strong that it is no use fighting against them. I have had no difficulty in starting or hold- ing my bowel movement. I always see to it that my work is carefully planned and organized. I would never play cards (poker) with a stranger. I regard the right to speak my mind as very important. I am bothered by acid stomach several times a week. I like to give orders and get things moving. I get all the sympathy I should. I do not read every editorial in the news- paper every day. I have felt embarrassed over the type of work that one or more members of my family have done. I don’t think I'm quite as happy as others seem to be. Any job is all right with me, so long as it pays well. I am embarrassed with people I do not know well. 419. 420. 421. 422. 423. 424. 425. 426. 427. 428. 429. 430. 431. 432. 433. 434. 435. 436. 437. 438. 439. It often seems that my life has no meaning. I used to steal sometimes when I was a youngster. I don’t really care whether people like me or dislike me. ' I feel like giving up quickly when things go wrong. If people had not had it in for me I would have been much more successful. The one to whom I was most attached and whom I most admired as a child was a woman (mother, sister, aunt, or other woman). I have often felt guilty because I have pre- tended to feel more sorry about something than I really was. There have been times when l have been very angry. There are a few people who just cannot be trusted. My home as a child was less peaceful and quiet than those of mosr other people. Even the idea of giving a talk in public makes me afraid. The things some of my family have done have frightened me. As a youngster in school I used to give the teachers lots of trouble. I am not afraid of picking up a disease or germs from doorknobs. It is more important that a father be kind than that he be successful. My skin seems to be unusually sensitive to touch. If the pay was right I would like to travel with a circus or carnival. I never cared much for school. I am troubled by attacks of nausea and vomiting. 1 would have been more successful if people had given me a fair chance. The members of my family were always very close to each other. 440. 442. 443. 444. 445. 446. 447. 448. 449. 450. 451. 452. 453. 454. 455. 456. 457. 458. 459. 460. 127 There are times when I have been discour- aged. . I have often been frightened in the middle of the night. The trouble with many people is that they don’t take things seriously enough. I’m not the type to be a political leader. My parents never really understood me. I would fight if someone tried to take my rights away. I must admit that people sometimes dis- appoint me. If I saw some children hurting another child, I am sure I would try to make them stop. People seem naturally to turn to me when decisions have to be made. Almost every day something happens to frighten me. I get sort of annoyed with writers who go out of their way to use strange and unusual words. I set a high standard for myself and I feel others should do the same. I dislike to have to talk in front of a group of people. I work under a great deal of tension. My family has objected to the kind of work I do, or plan to do. There seems to be a lump in my throat much of the time. I have more trouble concentrating than others seem to have. A person is better 08 if he doesn’t trust anyone. People who seem unsure and uncertain about things make me feel uncomfortable. My sleep is fitful and disturbed. A strong person doesn’t show his emotions and feelings. 461. 462. 463. 464. 465. 466. 467. 468. 469. 470. 471. 472. 473. 474. 475. 476. 477. 478. 479. 480. It seems that people used to have more fun than they do now. Even though I am sure I am in the right, I usually give in because it is foolish to cause trouble. It is hard for me just to sit still and relax. From time to time I like to get completely away from work and anything that re- minds me of it. I must admit that I am a high-strung per- son. I am a very ticklish person. At times I think I am no good at all. I like to eat my meals quickly and not spend a lot of time at the table visiting and talking. I must admit that it makes me angry when other people interfere with my daily ac- tivity. If a person doesn’t get a few lucky breaks in life it just means that he hasn't been keeping his eyes open. I sometimes feel that I do not deserve as good a life as I have. I feel that I would be a much better person if I could gain more understanding of my- self. I can't really enjoy a rest or vacation unless I have earned it by some hard work. I sometimes tease animals. I have a good appetite. I had my own way as a child. I get tired more easily than Other people seem to. I would be uncomfortable in anything other than fairly conventional dress. I sweat very easily even on cool days. I must admit it would bother me to put a worm on a fish hook. 481. 482. 483. 484. 485. 486. 487. 488. 489. 490. 491. 492. 493. 494. 495. 496. 497. 498. 499. 500. 501. 502. 503. 504. 505. 1128 I am easily awakened by noise. I am about as able to work as I ever was. I enjoy detective or mystery stories. I have diarrhea once a month or more. At times I have fits of laughing and crying that I cannot control. Evil spirits possess me at times. I have nightmares every few nights. I have had very peculiar and strange experiences. I seldom worry about my health. I have never been in trouble because of my sex behavior. During one period when I was a youngster I engaged in petty thievery. - I have had periods of days, weeks, or months when I couldn't take care of things because I couldn't "get going." I do not always tell the truth. I am in just as good physical health as most of my friends. I am liked by most peOple who know me. I am almost never bothered by pains over the heart or in my chest. Parts of my body often have feelings like burning, tingling, crawling, or like "going to sleep." I am very strongly attracted by members of my own sex. I am troubled by discomfort in the pit of my stomach every few days or oftener. I am an important person. I am easily downed in an argument. I am certainly lacking in self-confidence. It takes a lot of argument to convince most people of the truth. At times I have a strong urge to do something harmful or shocking. I believe in the second coming of Christ. 506. 507. 508. 509. 510. 511. 512. 513. 514. 515. 516. 517. 518. 519. 520. 521. 522. 523. 524. 525. 526. 527. 528. 529. 1429 I believe women ought to have as much sexual freedom as men. I have little or no trouble with my muscles twitching or jumping. I believe in a life hereafter. In school I was sometimes sent to the principal for cutting up. The sight of blood neither frightens me nor makes me sick. I have never indulged in any unusual sex practices. Sometimes I feel as if I must injure either myself or someone else. I like to cook. It makes me impatient to have people ask my advice or other- wise interrupt me when I am working on something important. Most nights I go to sleep without thoughts or ideas bothering me. I have had periods in which I carried on activities without knowing later what I had been doing. I have never felt better in my life than I do now. What others think of me does not bother me. I am against giving money to beggars. I feel weak all over much of the time. I have had attacks in which I could not control my movements or speech but in which I knew what was going on around me. I daydream very little. I would like to be a journalist. At times it has been impossible for me to keep from stealing or shoplifting something. My people treat me more like a child than a grown-up. I have used alcohol excessively. I loved my mother. It is not hard for me to ask help from my friends even though I cannot return the favor. My parents have often objected to the kind of peOple I went around with. 530. 531. 532. 533. 534. 535. 536. 537. 538. 539. 540. 541. 542. 543. 544. 545. 546. 547. 548. 549. 550. 551. 552. 1fl30 I hardly ever notice my heart pounding and I am seldom short of breath. I like to talk about sex. I have been disappointed in love. I never worry about my looks. I dream frequently about things that are best kept to myself. My way of doing things is apt to be misunderstood by others. Sometimes without any reason or even when things are going wrong I feel excitedly happy, "on top of the world." I believe there is a Devil and a Hell in afterlife. I don't blame anyone for trying to grab everything he can get in this world. I have had blank spells in which my activities were interrupted and I did not know what was going on around me. I like to be with a crowd who play jokes on one another. I believe there is a God. I am entirely self-confident. When in a group of people I have trouble thinking of the right things to talk about. Something exciting will almost always pull me out of it when I am feeling low. I do not blame a person for taking advantage of someone who lays himself open to it. Someone has control over my mind. I am sure I am being talked about. I have never been in trouble with the law. I have periods in which I feel unusually cheerful without any special reason. I have never been in trouble because of my sex behavior. Even when I am with people I feel lonely much of the time. I refuse to play some games because I am not good at them. 553. 554. 555. 556. 557. 558. 559. 560. 561. 562. 563. 564. 565. 566. 567. 568. 569. 570. 571. 572. 573. 574. 131 During one period when I was a youngster I engaged in petty thievery. I worry over money and business. I have never been in love with anyone. Peculiar odors come to me at times. I feel anxiety about something or someone almost all the time. I tend to be on my guard with people who are somewhat more friendly than I had expected. I get anxious and upset when I have to make a short trip away from home. I have been afraid of things or peOple that I knew could not hurt me. Sometimes I enjoy hurting persons I love. I feel sure that there is only one true religion. At periods my mind seems to work more slowly than usual. I very seldom have spells of the blues. I feel unable to tell anyone all about myself. Lightning is one of my fears. The only miracles I know of are simply tricks that people play on one another. I have sometimes felt that difficulties were piling up so high that I could not overcome them. I am not easily angered. If given the chance I could do some things that would be of great benefit to the world. People have often misunderstood my intentions when I was trying to put them right and be helpful. I have often met people who were supposed to be experts who were no better than I. I would certainly enjoy beating a crook at his own game. It bothers me to have someone watch me at work even though I know I can do it well. 575. 576. 577. 578. 579. 580. 581. 582. 583. 584. 585. 586. 587. 588. 589. 590. 591. 592. 593. 594. 595. 596. 1132 I played hooky from school quite often as a youngster. One or more members of my family is very nervous. I have at times had to be rough with people who were rude or annoying. I like to read newspaper editorials. It is all right to get around the law if you don't actually break it. I have had periods in which I lost sleep over worry. I have used alcohol moderately (or not at all). Except by a doctor's orders I never take drugs or sleeping powders. I often memorize numbers that are not important (such as automobile licenses, etc.). When I am cornered I tell that portion of the truth which is not likely to hurt me. Christ performed miracles such as changing water into wine. I feel like giving up quickly when things go wrong. I feel sympathetic towards people who tend to hang on to their griefs and troubles. I am afraid of finding myself in a closet or small closed place. I have never seen things doubled (that is, an object never looks like two objects to me without my being able to make it look like one object). I do not try to cover up my poor opinion or pity of a person so that he won't know how I feel. I think Lincoln was greater than Washington. I like mannish women. There is something wrong with my sex organs. I blush no more often than others. Several times I have been the last to give up trying to do a thing. My face has never been paralyzed. 133 597. I shrink from facing a crisis or difficulty. 598. Sometimes I am sure that other people can tell what I am thinking. 599. If I were an artist I would like to draw children. APPENDIX C DEMOGRAPHIC QUESTIONNAIRE 134' Please read through the following questions, and indicate your answers by filling in the appropriate box on your answer sheet. 174. Sex 5. 111819 b. female 175. Age a. 18 b. 19 c. 20 d. 21 e. 22 or older 176. Year in school a. freshman b. sophomore c. junior d. senior a. grad student 17?. Family income (include yourself, parents, and anyone else who is con- tributing to the support of your family) a. under 39,999 ‘ b. 310,000 - 319,999 c. 320,000 - 334,999 d. 335,000 - 349,999 a. over 350,000 APPENDIX D CONSENT FORM 1. 135 MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY Department of Psychology DEPAR'I'MEI‘TIIL RESEARCH CONSENT PORN I have freely consented to take part in a scientific study being conducted by: - g.. g. - {as}. o - A n-‘x under the supervision 0.: Academic Title: The study has been explained to me and I understand the ex- planation that has been given and what my participation will involve. I understand that I am free to discontinue my participation in the study at any time without penalty. I understand that the results of the study will be treated in strict confidence and that I will remain anonymous. Within these restrictions, results of the study will be made available. to me at my request.- I understand that my participation in the study does not guar- antee any beneficial results to me. I understand that, at my request, I can receive additional explanation of the study after my participation is completed. Signed: Date: TITLE OF RESEARCH PROJECT: 4 2-51. 1.1.7-9; 9'. REFERENCES 136 REFERENCES Berlyne, D. E. Conflict, Arousal, and Curiosity. New York: McGraw—Hill Book Co.,—I960. Berlyne D. E. Motivational problems raised by exploratory and epistemic behavior. In S. Koch (Ed.) Psychology: A study of a science. Vol. 5, New York: McCraw HiII, I963. (a) Berlyne, D. E. Curiosity and exploration. Science, 1966, 153, 25-33. Berlyne, D. E., Craw, M. A., Salapatek, P H., 8 Lewis, J. L. Novelty, complexity, incongruity, extrinsic motiva- tion, and the GSR. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1963, 66(6), 560-567. Blackburn, R. Sensation seeking, impulsivity, and psycho- pathic personality. Journal of Consultin and Clinical Psychology, 1969, 33(55, 571-574. Blanck, G., & Blanck, R. Ego psychology, theory and_practice. New York: Columbia University Press,_l974. Coursey, R. D., & Frankel, B. L. Novelty-seeking, fantasy, and sensitization in chronic insomniacs. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 1977, 44, 795-798. Coursey, R. D., & Gaines, L. Factor analytic structure of Pearson's Novelty Experiencing Scale. JSAS Catalogue of Selected Documents in Psychology, 1974, 4, No. 2, (Ms. No. 5367. Diaggostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 3rd ed. Washington, D.C.: American Psychiatric Associa- tion, 1980. Dickstein, L. S. Self-report and fantasy correlates of death concern. Psychological Reports, 1975, 37, 147-158. Edwards, A. L. Manual, Edwards Personal Preference Schedule. New York: Psychological’Cbrporation, 1953. Eisenman, R. Values and attitudes in adolescence. In J. F. Adams (Ed.), Understanding,adolescence, Boston: Allyn & Bacon, 1968. 137 Eisenman, R. Components of creativity, verbal condition- 1ng and risk taking. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 1969, 29, 687- 700. Eisenman, R., Grossman, J. C., & Goldstein, R. Undergraduate marijuana use as related to internal sensation novelty seeking and openness to experience. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 1980, 36, 1013-1019. Farley, F. H. Social desirability and dimensionality in the sensation- -seeking scale. Acta Psychologia, 1967, 26, 89- 96. Farley, F., & Farley, S. Extroversion and stimulus-seeking motivation. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 1967, 31(2), 215-216. Fenichel, 0. The psychoanalytic theory of neurosis. New York: W. W. Norton & Co., 1945. Fisher, S. Personality correlates of sexual behavior in black women. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 1980, 9 (1), 27-35. Fiske, D. W., & Maddi, S. R. (Eds.) Functions of varied experience. Homewood, 111.: Dorsey, 1961. Fowler, H. Curiosity and exploratory behavior. New York: MacMillan Co., 1965. Gaines, L. S., & Coursey, R. D. Novelty-experiencing, internal scanning, and cognitive control. Perceptual and Motor Skills. 1974, 38, 891-898. Garlington, W. K., & Shimote, H. E. The change seeker index: a measure of the need for variable stimulus input. Psychological Reports, 1964, 14, 919-924. Cough, H. C., & Heilbrun, A. B. The Adjective Check List Manual. Palo Alto, California: Consulting Psycholo- gists Press, 1965. Greenwald, A. C. The totalitarian ego: fabrication and revision of personal history. American Psychologist, 1980, 35(7), 603-618. Guilford, J. P. Structure of intellect. Psychological Bulletin, 1956, 53, 267-293. Gurwitz, P. M., Paths to psychotherapy in the middle years: A longitudinal study. Social Science and Medicine, 1981, 151, 67-76. 138 Haan, N. Proposed model of ego functioning: coping and defense mechanisms in relationship to IQ change. Psychological Monographs, 77: (8, Whole N. 571), 1963. Haan, N. Coping and defense mechanisms related to person- ality inventories. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 1965, 29(4), 373-378. Haan, N. A tripartite model of ego functioning values and clinical and research applications. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 1969, 148, 14-30. Haan, N. (Ed.) Coping and defending. New York: Academic Press, 1977. Harlow, H. F. Mice, monkeys, men and motives. Psycho- logical Review, 1953, 60, 23-32. Hartmann, H. Egogpsychology and the problem of adaptation. New York: International Universities’Press, Inc., 1958. - Hebb, D. 0. On the nature of fear. Psychological Review, 1946, 53, 259-302. Hutt, C. Specific and diversive exploration. In H. W. Reese & L. P. Lipsitt (Eds.) Advances in child development and behavior. Vol..i,New York: Academic Press, 1970. Jacobsen, P. The differential use of coping and defensive ego processes in college students seeking and not seek- ing psychotherapy: a validation study of the revised ego scales. Unpublished master's thesis, 1979. Joffe, P. E. Coping with disability. Unpublished manu- script, Cornell UhiverEity,’l977. Joffe, P. E., & Bast, B. A. Coping and defense in relation to accommodation among a sample of blind men. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 1978, 166(8), 537-552. Joffe, P., & Naditch, M. P. Paper and pencil measures of coping and defense processes. In Haan, N. (Ed.) Cgping and defending. New York: Academic Press, 1977. Kish, G. B., & Busse, W. Correlates of stimulus-seeking: age, education, intelligence, and aptitudes. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 1968, 32(65, 633-637. 139 Kohn, P. M., & Annis, H. M. Validity data on a modified version of Pearson's Novelty Experiencing Scale. Canadian Journal of Behavioral Science, 1975, 7(3), 274-278. Kohn, P. M., & Annis, H. M. Drug use and four kinds of novelty-seeking. British Journal of Addiction, 1977, 72, 135-141. Kohn, P. M., Barnes, G. E., & Hoffman, F. M. Drug-use history and experience seeking among adult male correc- tional inmates. Journal of Consulting and Clinical ngchology, 1979, 47(4): 708-715. Kohn, P. M., Barnes, G. E., Fishlinsky, M., Segal, R., & Hoffman, F. M. Experience seeking characteristics of methadone clients. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 1979, 47(5), 980-981. Kroeber, T. The coping functions of the ego mechanisms, in White, R. (Ed.) The Study of Lives. New York: Altherton, 1963. ‘ Kupst, M. J., & Schulman, J. L. The CPI subscales as pre- dictors of parental coping with childhood leukemia. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 1981, 37(2), 386- 388. Langevin, R. Is curiosity a unitary concept? Canadian Journal of Psychology, 1974, 25(4), 360-374. Langevin, R. Construct validity of sensation seeking and curiosity measures of normal and psychotic subjects. Canadian Journal of Behavioral Science, 1976, 8(3), 251-262. Lemond, L. C., Durham, R. L., Slater, G. P., Wilson, W. H., & Nunnally, J. C. Varying degrees of complexity and isolation in visual exploration. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 1974, 38, 787-794. Maddi, S. R. Exploratory behvior and variation-seeking in man. In Fiske, D. W., & Maddi, S. R. (Eds.) Functions of varied experience. Homewood, Ill.: Dorey, 1961. Maddi, S. R., Andrews, S. L., & Honey, R. D. Some structured self-report correlates of fantasy measures of the need for variety. Research Bulletin, 21-64. Princeton, N.J.: Educational Testing Service, 1964. Maddi, S. R., & Berne, N. Novelty of productions and desire for novelty as active and passive forms of the need for variety. Journal of Personalipy, 1964, 32, 270-277. 140 Maddi, S. R., Propst, B. S., & Feldinger, J. Three expressions of the need for variety. Journal of Personality, 1965, 33, 82-98. Maw, W. H., & Maw, E. W. An exploratory investigation into the measurement of curibsipy in e16mentary school c ildren. Project 801. Cooperative Research Branch, . . ice of Education, Department of Health, Educa- tion, and Welfare, 1964. McNemar, Q. Psychological statistics. New York: Wiley, 1969. Morrissey, R. F. The Haan model of ego functioning: an assessment of empirical research. In Haan, N. (Ed.) Coping and Defending. New York: Academic Press, 1977. Myers, A. K., & Miller, N. E. Failure to find a learned drive based on hunger; evidence for learning motivated by "exploration." Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 1954, 47, 428-436. Nunberg, H. Curiosit . New York: International Universi- ties Press, 1961. Nunnally, J. C., & Lemond, L. C. Exploratory behavior and human development. In H. W. Reese (Ed.), Advances in child development and behavior. Vol. 8, New York: AEademic Press, 1973. Pearson, P. H. Relationships between global and specified measures of novelty-seeking. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 1970, 34, 199-204. Pearson, P. H. Differential relationships of four forms of novelty experiencing. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 1971] 37(1), 23-30. Pearson, P. H., & Maddi, S. R. The Similies preference inventory: development of a structured measure of the tendency toward variety. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 1966, 30(4), 301-308. Penney, R. K., & Reinehr, R. C. Development of a stimulus- variation seeker scale for adults. Psychological Reports, 1966, 18, 631-638. Schwartz, M. M., & Gaines, L. S. Self-actualization and the human tendency for varied experience. Journal of Personality Assessment, 1974, 38, 423-427. Seligman, M. Helplessness: on depression, development, and death. San Francisco, W. H. Freeman & Co., 1975. 141 Shapiro, D. Neurotic Styles. New York: Basic Books, Inc., 1965i Shapiro, D. Autonomy and rigid character. New York: Basic Books, Inc., 1981. Stewart, D. W., & Griffith, G. M. Factor analysis of Zuckerman's Sensation Seeking Scale. Psychological Reports, 1975, 37, 849-850. Vickers, R. R., & Hervig, L. K. Comparison of three psychological defense mechanism questionnaires. Journal of Personality Assessment, 1981, 45(6), 630-638. Vickers, R. R., Hervig, L. K., Rahe, R. H., & Rosenman, R. H. Type A behavior pattern and coping and defense. Psychosomatic Medicine, 1981, 43(5), 381-396. Victor, H. R., Grossman, J. C., & Eisenman, R. Openness to experience and marijuana use in high school students. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 1973, 41, 78-85. ‘ Waters, C. W. Multi-dimensional measures of novelty experiencing, sensation seeking, and ability: cor- relational analysis for male and female college samples. Psychological Reports, 1974, 34, 43-46. Waters, C. W., Ambler, R., & Waters, L. K. Novelty and sensation seeking in two academic training settings. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 1976, 36, 453-457. Webster's Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary. Springfield, Mass.: G. 8 C. Merriam Co., 1970. Weisler, A., & McCall, R. B. Exploration and play: resume and redirection. American Psychologist, 1976, 492-508. Walker, W. I. An analysis of exploratory and play behavior in animals. In Fiske, D. W., & Maddi, S. R. (Eds.) Functions of varied experience. Homewood, Ill.: Dorsey, 1961. White, R. W. Motivation reconsidered: the concept of competence. Psychological Review, 66(5), 1959. Witkin, H. A. Individual differences in the case of perception of embedded figures. Journal of Personality, 1950, 19, 1-15. 142 Zuckerman, M. Dimensions of sensation seeking. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 1971, 36, 45-52. Zuckerman, M., Bone, R. N., Neary, R., Mangelsdorff, D., & Brustman, B. What is the sensation seeker? Personality trait and experience correlates of the sensation seek- ing scales. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, l972,’39(2), 308-321. Zuckerman, M., Kolin, E. A., Price, L., & Zoob, J. Develop- ment of a sensation-seekin scale. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 196 , 28, 477-482. Zuckerman, M., & Link, K. Construct validity for the sensation-seeking scale. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 1968, 32(4), 420-426. Zuckerman, M., Neary, R. 8., & Brustman, B. A. Sensation- seeking Scale correlates in experience (smoking, drugs, alcohol, "hallucinations," and sex) and preference for complexity (designs). Proceedings of the 78th Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association, 1970, 5, 317-318. IIsummary) Zuckerman, M., Persky, H., Hopkins. T. R., Murtaugh, T., Baser, G. K., & Schilling, M. Comparison of stress effects of perceptual and social isolation. Archives of General Psychology, 1966, 14, 356-365. Zuckerman, M., Schultz, D. P., & Hopkins, T. R. Sensation seeking and volunteering for sensory deprivation and hypnosis experiments. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 1967, 31(4), 358-363. MICHIGAN stars UNIV. LIBRARIES 11111111\llllllmlll11111NIIIIIIIlIIHIII 31293009814124