’4 .12: . 5..., .7. . 4. y. “an.” . annfxvyfsr. . .. a??? .m :: ”1...... .. . _ H .. .Mn «WWMEH L .. F . H ... warm-gm,» ... A. S “U. .. a . . . 5.1,. / N. .H . .. . . . p. . m B .rV... u. x. .. qY. ,,.. . . mmmm ovK . T . D . I. D E mm 0 I... .l E” S R .G T r N C . Y, G L M .m M.N . L K 0 II. S In A . . N A H I.“ e. C F. . A B C h I. f _ W Mm H P. _.H DI firm . M m. . . 0 I --1‘r_— “r cs- ., a. . .. _. wnéfiawfim THESlS . '~.___-— ‘7 ' (”I d LIB R A 52);. I Michigan State Univer31ty This is to certify that the thesis entitled COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF SELECTED PERSONAL AND SOCIAL BACKGROUND CHARACTERISTICS OF HIGH SCHOOL GIRLS AT THREE LEVELS OF PARTICIPATION IN BASKETBALL presented by Frances Becker Koenig has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for JELJLL__qu&3fi1 Physical Education ;:,<'”n - Datefl‘th igmbfL 0-169 Michigan State ’é University ,3 \ .._.; «r W “>7 . a.“ Rifle??? 2 I THESIS THESIS ABSTRACT COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OE SELECTED PERSONAL AND SOCIAL BACKGROUND CHARACTERISTICS OF HIGH SCHOOL GIRLS AT THREE LEVELS OF PARTICIPATION IN BASKETBALL By Frances Becker Koenig The primary purpose of this study was to describe and compare selected personal and social background character— istics of high school girls at various levels of partici— pation in basketball. Cattell's Jr.—Sr. High School Personality Question— naire, Bill's Index of Adjustment and Values, Haskins and Hartman‘s Action-Choice Test, several semantic differential scales and a social background inventory were administered to 29 varsity team members, 3“ intramural players, and 30 non-participants from two schools in the Flint, Michigan area. The data were analyzed exclusively with nonparame— tric statistical procedures including the chi square test, median test, Kruskal—Wallis analysis of variance, and Mann—Whitney U test. Findings indicated that personality differences exist between athletes and non—athletes on three person- ality dimensions: sociability, group orientation, and emotional control. Varsity team members and intramural THESIS Frances Becker Koenig players were found to have higher self—concepts than non— participants. Differences in agreement with statements concerning athletics in the high school were noted. Occu— pational preferences differed between the varsity and non- participant groups. No differences were found among the three groups in sportsmanship, degree of femininity, or family influence on participation. COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF SELECTED PERSONAL AND SOCIAL BACKGROUND CHARACTERISTICS OF HIGH SCHOOL GIRLS AT THREE LEVELS OF PARTICIPATION IN BASKETBALL By Frances Becker Koenig A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Health, Physical Education and Recreation 1969 ‘. P “QR . To my husband, Fred, The most unselfish man I have ever met ii THESIS ACKNOWLEDGMENTS To Dr. Janet A. Wessel, my academic advisor, who gave so generously of her time and thought to make this thesis a reality; To Dr. William N. Heusner, whose help in designing this study was invaluable; To Mr. Brian Petrie, whose scholarly advice on non— parametric statistical procedures was given so freely throughout the preparation Of this work; To Mr. Harry Webb, for assistance in preparing the social background instrument; To Dr. Bruce C. Ogilvie, who provided the writer with several of the instruments used in this study; To Mrs. Lorna Kelly and Miss Samantha Niergarth, for their assistance in gathering data; To the students of Fenton and Lakeville High Schools, who so willingly acted as subjects for this research; Go my sincere thanks and my deepest appreciation, for without them this study would not have been possible. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page DEDICATION. ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS iii LIST OF TABLES LIST OF FIGURES Chapter I. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . 1 Purpose of the Study Limitations of the Study Definition of Terms II. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE . . . . . . 7 Related Research Studies of teristics Studies of teristics Studies of teristics Competing Personal-Social Charac- of High School Girls Personal—Social Charac- of College Women Personal-Social Charac- Of Women Athletes in National or Inter- national Competition Summary of Pertinent Research Findings to Personal-Social Characteristics of Female Athletes Instrumentation Personality Inventory Measurement of Connotative Meaning Of Concepts Related to Basketball Measure of Self-Concept Masculinity-Femininity Scales Sportsmanship Test Family Influence on Participation, Career Interests, and Outlook Towards School iv Chapter Page III. METHODS AND PROCEDURES. . . . . . . 27 Subjects Sample Selection Source of Data Procedural Steps in Collecting Data Treatment of Data IV. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION. . . . . . . 34 Social Background Information Summary of Results of Social Back- ground Information Personal Characteristics Summary of Results of Personal Characteristics V. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . 58 Suggestions for Future Research BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . o . . . . . . . . . 63 APPENDIX I-—INSTRUMENTS . . . . . . . . . 74 APPENDIX II——RAW DATA . . . . . . . . . . 86 V Table LIST OF TABLES Responses of varsity, intramural, and non— participant groups to social background inventory items concerned with family influence on participation . Differences between rankings of occupa— tional preferences by varsity and non— participant groups . Percentage of agree responses given by the three groups to statements concerned with school-life concepts . . . Differences between responses of groups to statements concerned with school—life concepts Kruskal-Wallis analysis of variance among varsity, intramural, and non-participant groups to determine differences on the 14 personality dimensions measured by Cattell's HSPQ Kruskal-Wallis analysis of variance among varsity, intramural, and non—participant groups to determine differences in the connotative meaning of concepts related to basketball. . . . . . . Kruskal—Wallis analysis of variance among varsity, intramural, and non-participant groups to determine differences in self— concept as measured by Bill's Index of adjustment and values Kruskal—Wallis analysis Of variance among varsity, intramural, and non-participant groups to determine differences in self— concept as measured by a semantic differential scale Median test to determine traits considered by the total group as being typical of masculinity and femininity . vi Page 35 36 38 39 Al AS “7 A8 A9 Table 10. ll. 12. 13. IA. Extension of the median test to determine which traits varsity, intramural, and non-participant groups consider to be typical of masculinity and femininity. Median ratings of total group for each trait on the femininity scale and self— rating scale Extension of the median test to determine differences among self-ratings of varsity, intramural, and non-participant groups on each of the 8 traits considered to differentiate between masculinity and femininity. . . . . . . . . . . Median self-ratings of varsity, intramural, and non-participant groups on each of 8 traits considered to differentiate between masculinity and femininity. . . Kruskal-Wallis analysis of variance among varsity, intramural, and non-participant groups to determine differences in sportsmanship. Vii Page 51 53 53 55 56 THESIS LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1. Titles and symbols for designating the fourteen dimensions. . . . . 2O viii CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION At the present time very little is known about the role of sports for women in our culture. We do know that greater numbers of women are participating today than they did twenty years ago. There has, however, been little re— search as to what motivates girls to compete, what kind of girl participates, or what effect participation has physiologically, psychologically or sociologically on the female player. In the past five years there has been an increased interest in providing competitive sports experiences for girls and women in schools and colleges. Physical educa— tors and other interested women and men have been working through the Division for Girls and Women's Sports, the Amateur Athletic Union, state high school athletics asso— ciations and various other groups and agencies in an ef— fort to provide direction for programs designed for the girl or woman who is motivated to excell in sports. The American Medical Association, in 1964, commended the American Association for Health, Physical Education and Recreation and the Division for Girls and Women's Sports for encouraging greater development of sports opportunities for girls and women, and offered its sup— port in implementing the expanding girls' programs (3). The content of physical education convention pro- grams, meetings of other professional organizations, and publications of sports groups all reflect the growing interest in competition for the female. Numerous organi- zations are promoting and sponsoring competition for girls and women of all ages. No group, however, is making a concerted effort to gather research data on the partici- pants. To answer questions relative to sports competition for women in our culture, it is essential that investi- gators study athletes of all skill levels in a variety of sports. Physiologically, small beginnings have been made in studying the effects of strenuous activity on women. Psychologically and sociologically, virtually nothing has been done in this area. Not only do educators know little about what athletics do to and do for the female partici— pant, they have a paucity of information on the girl, her— self—-the participant. Information is needed on all aspects of the female athlete. A body of descriptive data Will be of value in understanding the female participant and in designing appropriate athletic experiences for women. THESIS Purpose of the Study The primary purpose of this study was to describe and compare selected personal and social characteristics of high school girls at various levels of participation in basketball. It was hypothesized that differences would exist among varsity basketball players, intramural participants in the same sport, and non-participants in basketball in: (l) personality, (2) connotative meaning of concepts re— lated to basketball, (3) self-concept, (A) degree of femi— ninity, (5) Sportsmanship, (6) family influence on partici- pation, (7) career interests, and (8) outlook towards school. Limitations of the Study This investigation was limited to mid—Michigan schools whose girls' basketball coaches were members of the Genesee County Women's Coaches Association during 1966-67. Schools offering both a varsity and intramural program in girls' basketball were used. The following independent variables were selected for investigation: personality, degree of femininity, self-concept, connotative meaning of concepts related to basketball, sportsmanship, family influence on participa— tion, career interests, and outlook towards school. THESlS. Inventories were administered to those absent from school on the day of testing by one other than the re— searcher. The mean age of the varsity team members exceeded that of the intramural players and non-participants by 18 months. The fact that one was a non-participant in basket- ball during the l966—l967 season did not preclude the possibility of varsity or intramural experience in an- other sport that year. Neither did it negate the possi- bility of varsity or intramural basketball participation in previous seasons. The study was made for comparative purposes only. Causation cannot be assumed or implied. Definition of Terms Characteristics Studied Career interests.--Occupations which appeal to stu- dents for the future. Connotative meaning of sports.—-The meaning, per— ceived by an individual or a group, that is suggested by and associated with a particular word but which is not ex- plicit in the word itself (53). Femininity.—-Possession of the qualities of the fe- male sex. Personality.—-The composite dimensions or facts which combine in different ways to produce unique human behavior. THESIS Self—concept.--The totality of ideas, perceptions and beliefs that form the image that an individual has of himself (13). Sportsmanship.—-Conduct becoming to a sportsman or sportswomen in terms of actions towards teammates and opponents. Student-life concepts.—-Ideas related to the school or one's outlook on life. Participation Levels Intramural participant.-—One who attended at least one—half of the regularly scheduled practices and/or intramural basketball games during the season. Non-participant.——One who was not categorized as either a varsity or intramural basketball player. Varsity player.——One who had been a member of her school varsity basketball team during the entire season. Selected Terms Used in Personality Tests Achievement (E)*.—-Does one's best, successful. Affiliation (E).--Loyal to group, likes friends. Autonomy (E).——Independent, non-conformist. Deference (E).--Does what is expected, follows in- structions, praises others, avoids the unconventional. DesurgencyA(C).—-Sober, serious, introspective. *(E) following a trait designates that the defini— tion is attributed to Edwards (28); (C) indicates Cat— tell's (17) description. THESIS Diffident.--Lacking confidence, reserved. Ego strength (C).--Mature, calm, stable. Ego weakness (C).-—Emotional, immature, unstable. Exhibition (E).-—Clever, witty, need to be the center of attention. High strength of self-sentiment (C).-—Controlled, considerate of others, accepts group standards. Nurturance (E).--Kind, sympathetic, helps others. Order (E).-—Organized, neat. Parmia (C).——Adventurous, friendly, genial, care- free. Phlegmatic temperament (C).——Deliberate, placid, constant. Poor self—sentiment (C).—-Emotionally uncontrolled, excitable, rejects cultural demands. Premsia (C).--Esthetically sensitive, imaginative, frivolous. Succorance (E).——Seeks encouragement and help from others. Super-ego strength (C).——Conscientious, persistent, responsible. SurgencyA(C).——Enthusiastic, happy-go—lucky, talkative. Tough-minded (C).——Realistic, self-reliant, self— sufficient. THESIS CHAPTER II REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE Teachers and coaches for fifty years have stated that sports contribute to healthy personality development. Good sportsmanship has been said to accrue from partici- pation in athletics. Everything from sociability, emo— tional stability and independence to masculinity has been attributed to participation in sports. Until very re— cently statements regarding psychological and sociologi— cal concomitents of participation were made with little or no substantative evidence to back them up. Presently, sociological studies of athletes are still almost non—existent. A review of the literature revealed that since 1960 there have been an increasing number of research studies dealing with psychological traits of participants in various sports. There is, how— ever, a paucity of information on the female athlete. The few studies that have been reported have used subjects widely differing in age and skill level. Until very recently the instrumentation used also varied greatly and little attempt has been made to pull together data on women athletes in general. THEE] Related Research Studies of Personal-Social Characteristics of High School Girls In an early study Flemming (35) attempted to deter— mine the personality characteristics of 84 high school girls. He used teachers' ratings of A6 traits and con- cluded that the athletic girl could not be distinguished from the non—athletic student on the basis of the traits used. Bell (7) administered the California Psychological Inventory to 109 varsity basketball players and 135 non- participants in seven high schools in Iowa. Her 1955 findings showed the athletes were less feminine, had a higher degree of social presence, and were more impulsive than the non-participants. A comparative study of specific physical character— istics and personality traits of girls who had previously been selected for district teams in North Carolina and those who had played but had not made district teams was done by Hisey (A3). No difference in characteristics was found using the Guilford—Zimmerman Temperament Survey. The two groups were compared on four traits: general activity (pace of activities, energy, production and efficiency, enthusiasm and desirability for speed); ascend- ency (self defense, leadership habits, conspicuousness, desire to speak to individuals and to speak in public and persuasion abilities); emotional state (evenness of moods, optimism, cheerfulness, composure and feelings of good health), and personal relations (tolerance and understand— ing). Ramsey (81) attempted to determine if there were measurable differences in personality traits and atti— tudes towards physical education. Subjects were high school varsity basketball players in Texas and Iowa and girls participating only in intramural programs in Illi- nois (where varsity competition for girls is prohibited by the state high school activities association). Using Edwards Personal Preference Schedule, she found the var— sity players to be higher in deference, nurturance and affiliation, and the intramural participants to be higher in dominance and exhibition. In summary, high school varsity athletes were found to be high in deference, nurturance, and affiliation by at least one investigator. Athletes also were described as more sociable, more impulsive, and less feminine than non-participants. High school intramural players were described by one researcher as being high in dominance and exhibition. Studies of Personal—Social Characteristics of College Women Several recent studies have been undertaken in which college athletes served as subjects. lO Malumphy (63), in a descriptive study of partici- pants in intercollegiate sports at five Ohio universi— ties, looked at four variables: personality (using Cat— tell's l6 Personality Factor Questionnaire*), early sports experience, family sports participation, and per— sonal feelings about competition. She found differences between non—participants and groups of athletes who par- ticipated at least two years in team sports, individual sports or both team and individual sports. Specifically, team sports athletes were less extraverted, less venture— some, more reserved and more tough-minded than the non- participants. She also noted that, while team sports participants were rather shy, reserved and sober, their coaches characterized them as being out—going, happy—go- lucky, venturesome and controlled. The sports groups were also differentiated from the non-participants on the basis of the answer to the personal information question— naire concerning mother's participation in sports. The non—participants reported the smallest percentage of mothers then currently participating in sports. In a later study, Malumphy (62) investigated the personality and general background of women who partici- pated in regional or national intercollegiate competition in golf, tennis and aquatic arts. She found differences among the groups on six dimensions of personality: *Hereafter referred to as the 16 PF. THESI affected by feelings——emotionally stable; expedient—— conscientious; shy-—venturesome; placid—-apprehensive; group dependent--self sufficient; and casual—-controlled. The personal information questionnaire showed differ- ences in socioeconomic factors and early sports exper- ience and training. Ibrahim (AM), using the Guilford—Martin Inventory of Factors GAMIN, found that a small sample of college women athletes scored above average on the femininity scale, tending, therefore, toward the masculine end of the scale. (Masculinity, as defined in the Inventory, in- cludes emotional toughness while femininity is charac- terized by emotional sensitivity.) He also noted that women athletes scored average in dominance-submission. Marler (6“) investigated the personalities of two groups of physical education majors. One of these sam— ples participated in college extramural activities and one did not participate. The Edwards Personal Preference Schedule showed the participants to be lower in their need for achievement than the non-participants. Summarizing, college varsity team members have been shown to be more introverted, more reserved, and less ven— turesome than non-participants. They also were described as being more tough-minded, more masculine, and having less need for achievement. 12 Studies of Personal—Social Characteristics of Women Athletes Competing in National or Inter- national Competition Peterson, Weber and Trousdale (79) investigated personality traits of women who participated in volley— ball in the 1964 Olympic Games or who were members of the top ten women's Amateur Athletic Union basketball teams during the same year. Using Cattell's 16 PF, they found these women to be self-sufficient, steady, practi— cal, dependable, interested in immediate issues, self- reliant, responsible, and emotionally disciplined. Com— pared to norms for women of comparable age and education, participants in volleyball and basketball were more serious, intelligent, conscientious, aggressive and per— severing and less ready to express themselves freely. They tended to be somewhat cool and aloof. Gifford (38) used Cattell's 16 PF and an informa- tion questionnaire to determine if there were any differ- ences between those who qualified for the 1968 Olympic trials in gymnastics and those who did not qualify. She found no differences between the two groups on nine selected personality dimensions. In addition, the two groups could not be distinguished on the basis of father's income, father's occupation, size of family, or size of hometown. Neal (69) administered the Edwards Personal Pre- ference Schedule to women participants of the 1959 fHEl l3 Pan-American Games. Comparing the competitors with the norm group of the same age, she found the athletes higher in achievement, affiliation, aggression, autonomy, nur- turance, and order. Studying the ten best women world tennis players of l96A, Kane and Callaghan (50) characterized those ath— letes as self-sufficient but diffident individuals, prone to worry, emotionally sensitive, introverted and anxious. They found lesser skilled women tennis players to be less stable, less confident, much more tense, and possessive of less ego—strength than the world caliber players. Kane (A9) found Olympic swimmers and track and field women athletes highly sociable, happy-go-lucky, low in emotional stability, low in conscientiousness, anxious, and extraverted. Cattell's 16 PF was used to study the personalities of both groups. In these studies, Kane found that the personalities of women athletes vary less from sport to sport than do the personalities of men ath— letes. This would seem to point to the existence of an athletic personality for women. The most extensive studies assessing the personali- ties of United States athletes have been undertaken by Ogilvie. He made use of Cattell's 16 PF and his High School Personality Questionnaire (HSPQ), making it possi— ble to relate the findings of one study to another. Based on limited data, Ogilvie (74) reported that women athletes tended to be extroverted, tough—minded, E m. IA self—assertive and self—confident with a high capacity to endure the stressful situations found in competitive sport. He found that men athletes can be characterized as emotionally stable, tough-minded, conscientious, self- controlled, relaxed, self-assured, adaptable, and outgoing. As compared to men, Ogilvie (72, 73, 7A) found women to be more reserved, tough—minded, emotionally stable, forthright, and venturesome. Men and women could not be distinguished in self—assertion, happy—go-lucky attitude, suspiciousness, imaginativeness, self— sufficiency, self-control, and resting level of tension. With younger athletes, he found male and female swimmers to be very similar, with girls just slightly more reserved, deliberate, tough-minded, undisciplined, and tense (73). A cross—sectional approach to studying female ath- letes was made possible by Ogilvie. His studies of female swimmers were done at three different age levels: mean age 9.9 years; mean age 1A.O years, and college age. Cattell's Children's Personality Questionnaire (CPQ), HSPQ and 16 PF, all of which measure a number of identi- cal dimensions of personality, were employed. Ogilvie's findings (74) showed that: l. The 10 year olds and the college women were reserved and cool while the high school girls were average for the normative population on this trait. 15 Both high school and college female athletes were more emotionally stable than the 10 year olds who were average for that dimension. Both elementary and high school girls were more dominant and self—assertive than college women who rated high average on that trait. There was no difference between groups in shy- ness and venturesomeness. All were high average toward venturesomeness and tended to be happy—go-lucky. There was a positive trend, with age, toward acceptance of group moral standards, with the 10 and 14 year olds scoring low on this dimen— sion. A gradual shift toward greater tough-mindedness (self—reliance, realistic, no—nonsense behavior as opposed to dependence, sensitiveness and over-protectedness) was evidenced. A trend, with age, from placidity and self— assurance toward apprehensiveness was noted. High school swimmers tended toward group adher— ence; college women were more self-sufficient. In self—discipline and self—control both IA year olds and college women scored low average compared to national norms. Ten year olds were significantly below average on the trait. 16 10. College women swimmers were lower than the general pOpulation in tenseness° Ten and 14 year olds were significantly more tense and driven than were college women. Ogilvie concluded that the cross-sectional study suggests there may be positive changes in personality with time. Whether competition contributed to the ob- served change or whether the less emotionally stable individuals dropped out of competition cannOt be deter— mined until the completion of the longitudinal study cur- rently underway. Ogilvie's research showed that, for all athletes, there was a relationship between tough—mindedness and athletic achievement. This personality dimension.was found consistently in his studies of national level com- petitors (75). As a result of his research, Kane (49,50) also con- cluded that tough-mindedness is characteristic of athletes. He has postulated that, from the happy-go—lucky, dominant, tough—minded youngsters that start out in sports, those who are less extraverted and more sensitive continue on and get to the top. 17 Summary of Research Findings Pertinent to Personal—Social Characteristics of Female Athletes Most researchers who noted differences between women athletes and the normative population found the athletes to be happy—go-lucky, self—reliant, self— sufficient, and realistic. On other traits there seems to be no general agree— ment. Several studies showed that women athletes were sociable and extraverted, while others found athletes to be reserved and tending toward introversion. There was also a difference found in the emotional stability of women athletes. Some investigators noted that women were highly stable emotionally; others found emotional instabil- ity among athletes. If there is such a thing as a female athletic personality, research findings to date have shown that a happy—go—lucky outlook and tough—mindedness may be descriptive of that personality. Further description can— not be concluded from composite results thus far. Instrumentation The choice of what variables to assess was based on a review of the literature and the researcher's own ex— perience with women in athletics. It was decided to in- vestigate the following personal characteristics in an attempt to find out what the girl who participates in athletics is like: 'lE l8 1. personality 2. self-concept 3. degree of femininity A. ideas relative to basketball, the coach, and the team 5. sportsmanship After examining the instrumentation used by others to assess the personal characteristics of female athletes, the final choice of inventories and questionnaires was made. The following sections describe the rationale for the selection of a specific test or for the modification of an existing instrument. Personality Inventory Cattell's l6 Personality Factor Questionnaire (16 PF) and his High School Personality Questionnaire (HSPQ) have been widely used in recent years to study the personali- ties of athletes at varying ages and skill levels in a large number of sports (38, A6, A9, 50, 56, 58, 62, 63, 7A, 75, 79, 83, 102, 109). The 16 PF and the HSPQ are designed for use with dif- ferent age groups and measure 12 personality dimensions in common. This fact gives added value to Cattell's scales for it is possibly to carry out longitudinal studies be— ginning in the adolescent years and continuing into adult— hood. l9 Kane,(50) who has done extensive research on the personalities of athletes in Britain, stated that Cattell's scales are probably the best available although they are not without limitations. According to Kane, Cattell used a rigorous factor analytic approach to clearly define independent personality dimensions of each scale (A9). Of importance, Kane stated, is the fact that considerable data have been collected in Britain and the United States using these scales. That fact enabled researchers to make valid comparisons between a wide variety of athletes (A9). Rushall (8A) asserted that Cattell's scales are not aligned toward clinical patients as are many other per- sonality tests. Other advantages of the scales include the fact that they are simple to interpret and are free from ultra—sophisticated meanings. Each of the 1A factors measured by the HSPQ was been a technical bi—polar title and a more popular title for lay use. Each is also identified by a letter of the alphabet, identical to the designations used in the 16 PF and the CPQ. Some of the dimensions refer to temperament traits; others to disposition traits (conditioned by environment), levels of dynamic integration or to measures of ethical character. A factor measuring general mental capacity is also included. A list of dimensions is shown in Figure l. FHE 20 Figure l.-—Titles and symbols for designating the fourteen dimensions.* Low Score on Trait-versus Degigigtion High Score on Trait by Letter echnical Title (Popular Title in Parentheses) A Schizothymia—versus-Cyclothymia (Stiff, Critical, Aloof—versus-Warm, Sociable) B Low General Mental Capacity-versus—General Intelligence (Dull—versus-Bright) C Neurotic, Emotional Instability, or Ego Weakness-versus—Ego Strength (Emotional, Immature, Unstable—versus—Mature, Calm) D Phlegmatic Temperament-versus—Excitabilm ity (Stodgy-versus-Unrestrained) E Submissiveness—versus-Dominance (Mild— versus-Aggressive) F Desurgency-versus-Surgency (Sober, Serious-versus-Enthusiastic, Happy-go- lucky) G Lack of Acceptance of Group Moral Standards-versus-Super Ego Strength (Casual, Undependable—versus—Conscien- tious, Presistent) H Threctia-versus—Parmia (Shy, Threat— Sensitive—versus—Adventurous, "Thick— skinned") I Harria-versus-Premsia (Tough, Realistic- versus—Esthetically Sensitive) J Dynamic Simplicity-versus-Neurasthenic Self—Critical Tendency (Liking Group Action—versus—Fastidiously Individual- istic) O Confident Adequacy—versus-Guilt Prone— ness (Confident-versus-Insecure) Q2 Group Dependency-versus—Self—Sufficiency (Group Dependent—versus—Individually Resourceful) Q3 Poor Self Sentiment Formation—versus- High Strength of Self Sentiment (Uncontrolled, Lax~versus-Controlled, Showing Will Power) QA Low Ergic Tension-versus-High Ergic Tension (Relaxed, Composed—versus- Tense, Excitable) *(17, p. 5) THE 21 Cattell's Jr.—Sr. High School Personality Question— naire (HSPQ): 1. Covers lA major independent dimensions descrip- tive of individual differences in personality and does not deal with one single factor. 2. Can be administered in a group classroom situa— tion. 3. Is specifically intended for use with 12—17 year olds, although it demands only a reading vocabulary of an average child of ll (17, A). A. Has a reasonable high test—retest and split- half reliability for each of the 1A factors. 5. Has satisfactory construct or concept validity for scales of the length used. Measurement of Connotative Meaning of Concepts Related to Basketball Everyone sees things just a little differently. However, there is a common core of meaning in all con— cepts, according to Kerlinger (53). While a concept has a common cultural connotation, he states it also has special meanings for particular groups. The semantic differential, as a method of measur- ing the psychological meaning of concepts, was originated by Osgood (75). Each semantic differential consists of a number of scales (or bipolar adjectives) together with a concept to be rated by the scales. The bipolar adjectives THE 22 are usually on seven point rating scales. Osgood lists 50 adjective pairs (75, p. 37) which were empirically shown to be of value in determining the meaning of various con- cepts. Any number of adjective pairs may be used in rat— ing a concept as long as each is relevant to the concept used. Selltiz and his collaborators (89) reported that differential scales are an attempt to approximate an in- terval scale where the distances between two points are known. Kerlinger (53) stated that psychologists have used the semantic differential rather extensively to study attitude conditioning, human values, and emotions. While educators have made limited use of the method, he believes the method is sufficiently reliable and valid for many research studies. A semantic differential, designed to measure the connotative meanings of various sports concepts, was specifically made for use with athletes by Bruce C. Ogilvie.* The concepts of coach, team, sport and fans are measured. Measure of Self—Concept Combs (20) defined self-concept as the way in which an individual sees himself. The adequate, self—actualizing *A copy of the instrument, entitled Semantic Dif- ferential, may be found in Appendix I. 23 person seems to have an essentially positive View of the self. He sees himself as being liked, wanted, acceptable, and of importance. Negative aspects of the self are taken in stride. It was Maslow's contention that each person has an inner core or self which is intrinsic, natural, and usu— ally resistant to change. There is a dynamic force within this nature that presses for open, uninhibited expression. This force is the pressure of self—actualization, the quest for one's identity. Psychological health is only possible, said Maslow, when this inner nature of a person is accepted and respected by others and himself. According to Borg (l3) self-concept is the totality of the ideas, perceptions, and beliefs that form the image of himself that the individual creates. A person tends to behave in a manner which he considers to be in keeping with his self—concept. ‘ Kelley (51) stated that ”self” starts when life be— gins. It is unique to the individual and depends on the accumulated background of the person. He further postu— lated that the self is a composite achieved through social contact. What a person thinks he is, rather than what he is, is crucial. According to Kelley, the fully function— ing personality thinks well of himself and others. He is not static, but always moving and becoming. THE 2A Robert E. Bill's Index of Adjustment and Values (10) is a standardized measure of self—concept. The Index is designed to measure self—description (self—concept), self acceptance, ideal self, and discrepancy between concept of self and ideal Self. Each subject rates himself with respect to A9 word traits. He also tells how he feels about being that sort of person (acceptance of self), and how he would like to be with respect to each trait (ideal self). An additional measure of self—concept was included in Ogilvie's Semantic Differential. Masculinity—Femininity Scales Masculinity and femininity scales have been included in several personality tests, including the Edwards Per— sonal Preference Schedule, the California Personality In- ventory, and the Guilford-Martin Inventory of Factors GAMIN. In all of these cases, culturally-based defini— tions of the traits of masculinity and femininity were used to study the validity of the scales. Ogilvie (73) stated that there has been resistance in our society to modifying the culturally defined terms of masculinity and femininity. According to him, it has been the male who determines what range of behavior is classified as being feminine. Rubin (83) asserted that feelings, emotions and interests are human, and as such, have no sexual 25 connotation unless so defined by a particular group or person. If this is true, a scale which permitted a group to define masculinity and femininity as they viewed them would be most meaningful. Having found no instrument satisfactory for use in this study, the investigator modi— fied a semantic differential, formulated by Ogilvie, for use in this research.* By using three identical semantic differentials, it was possible to arrive at a group defi- nition of masculinity, a group definition of femininity, and a self—rating on degree of femininity. Sportsmanship Test Physical educators have long asserted that partici- pation in sports contributes to sportsmanship, but have seldom evaluated sportsmanship objectively. Undoubtedly, attaining sportsmanship is a learning process. One must know what the prOper behavior is before he can exhibit the behavior. Sportsmanship, therefore, must be taught. Opportunities must also be given to practice the behavior so that it becomes habit. Haskins and Hartmans Action-Choice Tests, standard— ized on college women, are designed to measure sportsman— ship attitudes and knowledge. The tests are suitable for use with high school students. The student's response is determined by his experience in similar situations and *A copy of the instrument may be found in Appendix I. 26 by his ability to relate test items to his experience (A0, p. 65). Family Influence on Participation, Career Interests, and Outlook Towards School Stiles (97) studied factors involved in initiating sports participation in skiing. He found that most of the persons interviewed had a background of family sports participation. The writer, in a preliminary pilot study, found that parental interest and encouragement to partici- pate differentiated between college varsity players and non—participants. Participation, therefore, may be influenced by some- thing other than an individual's own interest and skill in a sport. Educators have postulated that the amount of in— volvement in school activities affects the student's atti- tudes and outlooks toward the institution. This has been one of the reasons for offering a broad extracurricular activity program at the junior and senior high school level. Since no instrument was found to assess these social characteristics, the writer constructed an inventory for use in this study.* *A c0py of the instrument may be found in Appendix I. CHAPTER III METHODS AND PROCEDURES The study was designed to test the hypothesis that differences in personality, connotative meanings of con— cepts related to basketball, self-concept, degree of femininity, sportsmanship, family influence on participa— tion, career interests, and outlook towards school exist among high school girls at various levels of participation in basketball. The experimental design required three groups of subjects: a varsity group, an intramural group, and a non-participant group. Subjects Subjects were selected from two schools in the Flint, Michigan area. All were white females enrolled in grades 9—12. A total of 93 subjects were used in the study. Subjects ranged in age from 1A to 19 years, with the mean age 16.0 years. Sample Selection In obtaining the sample from the total population of 715 females in the two schools, the following criteria were used: 27 THEE 28 1. To be categorized as a varsity player, a girl had to have been a member of her school varsity basketball team during the entire 1966—67 season. 2. To be classified as an intramural participant, a girl had to have attended at least one—half of the regularly scheduled practices and/or intramural basketball games during the 1966-67 season. 3. Non-participants were those girls who were cate- gorized as neither varsity nor intramural bas- ketball players during the 1966-67 season. Names of the varsity players and the intramural par- ticipants who satisfied the criteria were supplied by the coaches of the girls' basketball teams at the two schools. Lists of girls enrolled in grades 9—12, as of January, 1967 were supplied by the principals of the schools. Names of the varsity and intramural players were stricken from the enrollment lists. A total of 29 varsity players were listed by the coaches (16 from Lakeville and 13 from Fenton). Thirty- four intramural participants (2A from Lakeville and 13 from Fenton) had attended the required number of practices and/or games. The entire populations of varsity players and intramural participants were selected for the sample. 29 By use of a table of random numbers, 32 non— participants were selected from among the 652 girls who were listed on school rolls and who were not categorized as either varsity or intramural players. Of the non- participants, 15 were enrolled at Fenton and 17 at Lake- ville. The sample, as selected, included a total of 95 subjects with 29 girls in the varsity group, 3A in the . intramural group, and 32 in the non-participant group. (At a later date two of the non—participants' scores were excluded due to the fact that their mental ability pro- hibited their understanding the instructions sufficiently well to adequately answer the various scales. The final sample, therefore, included 93 subjects with 30, rather than 32, in the non-participant group.) The mean ages of the varsity, intramural, and non—participant groups were 17.3, 15.8, and 15.7 years. The groups could be con— sidered reasonably comparable in socioeconomic background since subjects from both schools were included in each group. Source of Data The instruments selected for use were as follows: 1. Personality Questionnaire——Cattell's Jr.-Sr. High School Personality Questionnaire, Form A. 4E5 30 2. Measure of the Connotative Meaning of Concepts Related to Basketball—~a semantic differential scale constructed by Ogilvie.* 3. Self-Concept Measures—-Bill's Index of Adjust- ment and Values, Adult Form and a semantic differential constructed by Ogilvie.* A. Degree of Femininity Measure--semantic differ- ential Masculinity—Femininity Scales constructed by Ogilvie and modified by the writer.* 5. Sportsmanship Test-~Haskins and Hartman's Action— Choice Test, Form B. 6. Social Background Informationjean inventory prepared by the investigator.* Procedural Steps in Collecting Data At the onset of the study, the cooperation of the Genesee County Women's Coaches Association was sought and obtained. Members of the Association were physical educa— tion teachers and coaches of varsity basketball teams in 1A high schools in the Flint, Michigan vicinity. The specific area was chosen because a well-organized inter- scholastic girls' basketball program had been in effect for a number of years. The investigator met with the Association members to outline the purpose of the study. At that time it was *A copy of the instrument may be found in Appendix I. 31 found that only two of the 1A schools offered both varsity and intramural basketball programs. Since the design of the study required three groups of subjects, it was de— cided to draw the sample from the two institutions which had an intramural program in addition to a varsity team. Fenton High School, Fenton, Michigan and Lakeville High School, Otisville, Michigan were used. ‘ Permission to test the subjects was obtained from the principals of the two schools. All tests and inven- tories were administered during school hours. All students selected for the sample were sent let- ters inviting them to take part in the study. Assurance was given that replies would be anonymous and confiden- tial. All 95 subjects indicated willingness to answer the various questionnaires and inventories. The testing was done by the investigator at each school in two, one and one—half hour sessions on two suc— cessive Fridays, May 5 and May 12, 1967. A room suitable for testing purposes was provided at each location. Sub— jects were excused from their regularly scheduled classes on both testing occasions. Assistance in administering the tests was given, in each case, by the girls' physical education teacher. Identical instructions were given to subjects at each school. On the first testing occasion subjects com- pleted the FKHW Inventory, the Semantic Differential, the 32 Action—Choice Test, and Cattell's HSPQ. The Index of Adjustment and Values and the Masculinity-Femininity Scales were administered the second day. Students absent from school on the day of testing completed the inventories when they returned to classes. Administration of tests in those cases was done by the girls' physical education teachers. Written instructions for the subjects were provided by the investigator. The scales and inventories were hand scored and tallied. Data were set up for analysis on a Control Data CDC 3600 computer. Treatment of Data With all of the data at the ordinal level of mea— surement, nonparametric statistical procedures were em- ployed throughout:* *Kerlinger (53) and Siegel (91) caution against using parametric statistical procedures if the rigorous assumptions required for parametrics are not met. If the assumptions are violated, the conclusions drawn from the data may possibly be in error. Siegel points out that, "many personality inventories . . . result in scores which have the strength of ranks. Although the scores may appear to be more precise than ranks, gener- ally these scales do not meet the requirements of any higher level of measurement and may properly be viewed as ordinal" (91, p.2AL He further points out that parametric statistics which utilize means and standard deviations to derive F or t values should be used only with interval scales where successive intervals or distances between scores are equal. For analyzing data where scores are only on an ordinal scale, nonparametric statistical pro— cedures, which have fewer and less exact assumptions, should be used. The writer asserts that the scores de— rived from Cattell's scales, the Semantic Differential, E B 33 l. The median test, extension of the median test, Kruskal—Wallis one—way analysis of variance and Mann-Whitney U test (90) were used to analyze the data from the Masculinity—Femininity Scales. 2. Kruskal—Wallis one—way analysis of variance techniques and the Mann—Whitney U test served in analyzing the Index of Adjustment and Values, Cattell's HSPQ, the Semantic Differential, and the Action—Choice Test. 3. Tables were constructed to depict the percen- tages of responses to the following Inventory items: parental activity habits, parental encouragement to participate, career interests, and school—life concepts. The X2 test for inde— pendent samples was used to see if differences existed between groups. In general, the probability of making a Type I error was held at the .10 level. In analyzing the Masculinity— Femininity Scales and the social background information, the .05 level of significance was chosen. Bill's IAV, and the Action-Choice Test are at an ordinal level of measurement, and that the use of parametric statistics for analyzing data is not proper. THES CHAPTER IV RESULTS AND DISCUSSION The results and discussion are presented in two parts. First, the descriptive social background informa- tion on subjects will be given. The following variables will be looked at: parental influence to participate, career interests, and agreement with stated student-life concepts. Second, the personal characteristics of the experimental groups will be discussed in the following order: personality characteristics, connotative meanings of concepts related to basketball, self—concept, degree of femininity, and sportsmanship. Social Background Information Tables 1, 2, 3, and A depict the percentages of responses to items on the social background instrument. The X2 test for independent samples was used to determine if differences between groups were due to chance alone. Parental Influence to Participate As shown in Table 1, no differences among varsity, intramural and non—participant groups were found on the following variables: parental encouragement to participate 3A 35 in extracurricular activities, parental interest in sports, and frequency of family participation in recreational activities. TABLE l.——Responses of varsity, intramural and non— participant groups to social background inventory items concerned with family influence on participation. Percentage of Total Group Checking Responses Question Group (N) a b c d e Parental Varsity (N=29) 31.0 27.5 ~20.6 17.2 3.7 encourage— Intramural (N=3A) 38.2 32.3 20.5 5.8 3.3 ment given Non—partic.(N=30) 23.3 A0.0 30.0 6.7 0.0 Father's Varsity (N—29) 55.1 27.5 13.7 3.7 0.0 interest in Intramural (N=3A) 58.8 20.5 11.7 5.8 3.2 sports Non-partic.(N=30) 60.0 26.6 13.A 0.0 0.0 Mother's Varsity (N=29) 27.5 AA.8 17.2 6.8 3.7 interest in Intramural (N=3A) 35.2 38.2 17.6 2.9 6.1 sports Non—partic.(N=30) 16.6 A0.0 26.6 8.8 7.0 Frequency Varsity (N=29) 20.6 3A.A 3A.A 10.6 —- of family Intramural (N=3A) 20.5 A1.1 26.A 12.0 —— recreation Non—partic.(N=30) 20.0 A0.0 30.0 10.0 -— Career Interests Table 2 shows that when varsity team members and non—participants were compared on their rankings of occu- pational preferences, a number of differences were found. As might be expected, the varsity players as com— pared to the non—participants, showed a distinct prefer- ence for becoming women athletes. Because varsity team members have found satisfaction in sports participation 36 in the past, it is natural that these subjects believe it would be found again in an athletic occupation. In rating the future occupation of beautician, there was a differ- ence between the rankings of the varsity and non-participant groups. Over two—thirds of the non—participants ranked it first or second. Only 28 per cent of the varsity athletes gave similar rankings. No differences were found in rank— ings by the two groups of the occupations of singer, teacher, scientist, or bank executive. TABLE 2.—-Differences between rankings of occupational preferences by varsity and non-participant groups. Preference Ranking (in percentages) Occupation Group N 1&2 3&A 5&6 X2 P Teacher Varsity 28 A9.9 35.6 1A.5 Non—part. 28 28.5 A6.3 25.2 2.8AO N.S. Singer Varsity 28 10.7 32.0 57.3 Non—part. 28 21.3 35.7 A3.0 1.620 N.S. Athlete Varsity 28 67.8 21.A 10.8 Non-part. 28 28.A A2.7 28.9 8.752 <.05 Beautician Varsity 28 28.5 39.2 32.3 Non-part. 28 67.8 21.3 10.9 8.9A8 <.05 Scientist Varsity 28 17.8 35.7 A6.5 Non—part. 28 10.6 17.8 61.6 3.6A8 N.S. Bank Varsity 28 21.A 39.2 39.A Executive Non-part. 28 A2.8 35.6 21.6 3.512 N.S. THES 37 SchooleLife Concepts Table 3 shows the per cent of the varsity, intra- mural and non-participant groups who agreed with stated school—life concepts. Table A depicts differences in re- sponses of the three groups to those concepts where the percentage of agreement varied. It is interesting to note the responses of the groups to statements regarding ath— letics. Fewer varsity team members than non-participants believe that try-outs always select the best athletes. Fewer varsity members than intramural players agree that boys should play sports instead of reading a lot. Per— haps the varsity squad members are more realistic about the fact that athletics is but one part of a vital school extracurricular program. The intramural group differed from the non-participants in their opinion on the state- ment that the most popular girls are not good athletes. Over 80 per cent of the intramural players disagreed with the statement while almost half of the non—participants agreed with it. Summary of Results of Social Background Information In summary, no differences among groups were found in regard to parental encouragement to participate, parental interest in sports, or frequency of family par— ticipation in recreational activities. In ranking THES TABLE 3.——Percentages of agree responses given by the three groups to statements concerned with school—life concepts. \ Group Item Varsity IM N-P (N=29) (N=3A) (N=30) a. A person works best when he works by himself. 37.9 A1.1 33.3 b. School tryouts always select the best athletes. 13.7 32.3 A3.3 c. Any person with desire and ability has to take a stand against the majority. 27.5 52.9 50.0 d. It's best to live for today; tomorrow will take care of itself. Al.3 50.0 60.0 e. The knowledge girls have about sports is low. 31.0 20.5 26.6 f. All the students have a chance to run things around here. 2A.l 2A.2 20.0 g. Overall, school courses are dull and uninteresting. 13.7 17.6 26.6 h. Boys should play sports instead of reading a lot. 13.7 A1.1 33.3 i. The most popular girls b are not good athletes. 32.1 17.6 A6.6 j. Boys and girls should compete in sports. 68.9 88.2 86.6 an=33 bN 28 39 TABLE A.—-Differences between responses of groups to statements concerned with school-life concepts. Disagree X2 athletes Item Group Agree p In Percentages School try- Varsity 29 13.7 86.3 outs always Non—Part. 3O A3.3 55.7 5.16 .05 select the Varsity 29 13.7 86.3 best ath- IM 3A 32.3 67.7 2.0A N.S. lete. . Any person Varsity 29 27.5 72.5 with desire Non-Part. 30 50.0 50.0 2.2A N.S and ability Varsity 29 27.5 72.5 has to take IM 3A 52.9 A7.1 3.17 N.S a stand against the majority. Overall, Varsity 29 13.7 86.3 school Non-Part. 30 26.6 73.A <1.00 N.S courses are Varsity 29 13.7 86.3 dull and un- IM 3A 17.6 82.A <1.00 N.S interesting. Boys should Varsity 29 13.7 86,3 play sports Non-Part. 30 33.3 66.7 2.12 N.S. instead of Varsity 29 13.7 86.3 reading a IM 3A A1.1 58.9 A.A9 .05 lot. '. The most IM 3A 17.6 82.A pOpular Non-Part. 3O A6.6 53.A A.97 .05 girls are IM 3A 17.6 82.A not good Varsity 28 32.1 67.9 1.06 N.S. THES AO career interests, varsity players and non-participants dif- fered in their preferences. More varsity players preferred to be women athletes. Non—participants had a preference for the occupation of beautician. Differences were also noted between groups on statements dealing with athletics in the high school. Personal Characteristics Personality Questionnaire The Kruskal—Wallis one—way analysis of variance was used to analyze the Cattell HSPQ. The results are shown in Table 5. Differences were found to exist among groups on the following dimensions: reserved versus outgoing (Factor A) group oriented versus individualistic (Factor J) casual versus controlled (Factor Q3). These results support the research hypothesis that there are personality differences among varsity squad mem— bers, intramural players, and non-participants in basket- ball. Differences in sociability, liking for group action, and self-control were found. With respect to the other personality dimensions measured by Cattell's HSPQ, it can- not be assumed that the three samples were drawn from dif- ferent populations. The Kruskal-Wallis analysis of variance merely per- mitted conclusions to be drawn relative to differences A1 TABLE 5.—-Kruska1—Wallis analysis of variance among varsity, intra— mural and non-participant groups to determine dif- ferences on the 1A Personality dimensions measured by Cattell's HSPQ; Rank Sums of Groupsa (Based on Questionnaire Raw Scores) Value Factor p Varsity IM N-P Of H (N=29) (N=33) (N=30) A Reserved vs. b Outgoing 1089.0 1777.5 1A11.5 5.83 .05 B Low mental capacity vs. Intelligent 1539.0 1A76.0 1263.0 2.85 .2A C Emotional in- stability vs. Ego strength ’ 12A0.5 1663.5 137u.0 1.31 .52 D Placid vs. Excitable 1112.0 1675.5 1A90.5 A.02 .13 E Submissive vs. Dominant 1323.0 1A85.0 1A70.0 0.AO .82 F Sober vs. . Happy-go-lucky 1387.0 1596.0 1295.0 0.71 .70 G Expedient vs. . Conscientious 1AA8.0 1671.0 1159.0 3.92 .1A H Shy vs. Adventurous 1368.0 1661.0 12A9.0 1.71 .A3 I Tough-minded vs. Tender—minded 1318.5 1519.0 1AAO.5 0.15 .93 J Group oriented vs. Individual— istic 1077.0 1681.5 1519.5 5.30 .07 O Confident vs. Insecure 126A.5 1616.0 1397.5 0.63 .73 Q2 Group dependent vs. Self- sufficient 1A56.5 1A28.5 1393.0 1.06 .59 Q3 Casual vs. d Controlled 1539.0 1621.5 1117.5 5.73 .06 QA Relaxed vs. Tense 1358.5 1512.5 1A07.0 0.03 .98 aLow rank sums indicate a tendency toward the trait listed first under a particular factor. b more reserved than the intramural group (U a 307; p and more reserved than the non-participant group (U The Mann-Whitney U test showed the varsity group to be .0076), 3A7; p = .0896). 0The Mann-Whitney U test showed the varsity group to be more group oriented than the intramural group (U = 308.5; p = .0077), and more group oriented than the non-participant group (U = 329.5; p = .0532). dThe Mann—Whitney U test shewed the varsity group to be more controlled than the non-participant group (U - 279; p = .0087), and the intramural group to be more controlled than the non- participant group (U - 373.5; p = .0A65). THES A2 among the groups. Where differences were found, the Mann- Whitney U test was used to further differentiate between varsity, intramural and non—participant groups. The Mann—Whitney U test indicated that the varsity group was more reserved than both the non—participants and the intramural players. This is consistent with the find— ings of Kane and Callaghan (50),Ma1umphy (63), Ogilvie (7A, 75), and Peterson (79). It might be expected that the more outgoing individuals would be found in intramural sports. By their very nature, women's intramurals have a high social component, and they appeal to the casual sportswoman. The interest on the part of sororities, clubs, and other social groups in intramurals testifies to this fact. The highly competitive individual, on the other hand, is more likely to retreat into himself in an effort to concentrate on arriving at success patterns necessary for his particular sport. With respect to the trait group oriented versus individualistic, it was found that the varsity athlete is more group oriented than either the intramural player or the non—participant. No difference was found between the intramural and non-participant groups. One of the neces— sities of successful participation in team sports is the ability to subordinate one's own desires to the needs of the group. It would seem likely that varsity team A3 members would either be group oriented initially or would soon acquire the trait after playing with a team. When one looks at the factor casual versus control- led, it is noted that both the varsity and intramural groups were more controlled than the non-participants. Cattell describes a person who is controlled as one who has will power, is ambitious, considerate of others, fore— sighted, conscientious, and attempts to control expres- sions of emotions (17, p. 17). Coaches and physical educa— tors attempt to teach these traits, and a coach looks for these attributes in his athletes. It is possible that girls who are casual, rather than controlled, have no in— terest in sports participation or have found that they are not successful in sports performance. Other researchers found women athletes to be dif— ferent from non-athletes in the dimensions happy-go-lucky vs. sober, and tough-minded vs. tenderminded. The results of this study do not lend support to previous findings with regard to these personality dimensions. It is possible that the discrepancy in findings is due to the difference in age or skill levels of subjects for various studies. Ogilvie's data include test results for school age girls, but his subjects were a highly select group competing for the nationally renouned Santa Clara Swim Club. It is probable that such a group cannot be equated with a high school varsity team. All other investigators who have AA used Cattell's scales have utilized subjects of post—high school age. Most of the women athletes were regionally or nationally ranked or members of a national or international team. It would not be unusual for older women at a very high level of skill to differ in personality from high school varsity or intramural players. It is also possible that some of the variation in results of this study and previous studies may be due to the use of different statistical procedures. All other investigators with the exception of Gifford (38) utilized parametric statistics to analyze data. Since the results found by other researchers were treated statistically in a different manner, it is not possible to make direct comparisons between these finds ings of this study and those of other investigators. In general, however, the results of this research support prior evidence that personality differences exist be— tween athletes and non—athletes. Connotative Meanings of Concepts. Related to Basketball Kruskal—Wallis analysis of variance techniques were utilized to analyze the semantic differential designed to measure connotative meanings of particular concepts. The concepts rated included: me as the coach sees me, coach as she is, team as it is, basketball as it is, and fans as they are. Table 6 lists the H values and significance A5 levels of ratings of the five concepts. The only concept that was viewed differently by the varsity, intramural and non-participant groups was "me as the coach sees me." No differences were found in the connotative meanings given by the three groups to the coach as she is, the team, the sport, or the fans. TABLE 6.——Kruskal—Wallis analysis of variance among varsity, intramural and non—participant groups to determine differences in the connotative meaning of concepts related to basketball. * Rank Sums of Groups (Based on Median Scores for Concept) Concept Varsity (N=28) IM (N=31) N-P (N=27) Zfilfie p Me as coach a c sees me 1020.5 1A03.5 1AOA.0 5.22 .07 Coach as she is llA3.5 1AA7.5 1150.0 0.87 .65 Team as it is 1259.5 131A.0 1167.5 0.17 .92 Basketball as it is 103A.5 1371.5 1335.0 3.53 .17 Fans as b they are 1339.0 1215.5 1100.5 2.89 .2A aN=32 bN=27 CThe Mann—Whitney U test showed that the varsity group felt that the coach held her in higher regard than did the non—participant group (U = 2A3; p = .OllA). * , A low mean rank sum indicates a more favorable rating. A6 Whether a girl plays basketball or not seems to have no bearing on how she views the team, the coach, or the sport. The extent of her participation in competitive basketball is, however, related to her ideas about what the coach thinks of her as an individual. The varsity player felt that the coach held her in higher regard than did the non—participant. It is understandable that a girl who works closely with the coach in varsity practice and games feels that the coach regards her highly. It is equally understandable that a girl whose contact with the coach is more limited believes the coach may not think as much of her as she does of some of her fellow students. It is interesting to note that while the varsity player and the non-participant believe the coach sees them differently, they View the coach essentially the same way. Apparently, no group who feels favored or slighted holds this against the coach. Self—Concept Bill's Index of Adjustment and Values was analyzed by use of the Kruskal—Wallis one-way analysis of variance. The results are shown in Table 7. 0n the basis of the findings it cannot be concluded that varsity athletes, intramural players, and non— participants differ with regard to self-concept. No dif- ferences were found, using Bill's Index, on: THES A7 self—description, self—acceptance, ideal self, or discrep— ancy between self-description and ideal self. TABLE 7.—-Kruska1—Wallis analysis of variance among varsity, intramural and non-participant groups to determine differences in self—concept as measured by Bill's Index of Adjustment and Values. Rank Sums of Groups (Based on median Scores on IAV) . Varsity IM N—P Value variable (N=29) (N=3A) (N=30) of H Self-description 1535.5a 1652.0 1183.5 3.88 .14 Self-acceptance 13A8.0a 1729.5 1293.5 1.33 .51 Ideal self 1u30.5a 1575.0 1365.5 0.33 .85 Discrepancy between self—description b and ideal self 1306.0 1u53.0 1612.0 2.87 .24 aHigher rank sums indicate more favorable self ratings bLow rank sums indicate less discrepancy. Kruskal—Wallis techniques also were used to analyze the responses to the self—concept portions of the Seman— tic Differential. The results, shown in Table 8, indi— cate that there is a difference among the groups in the ratings of the concept, ”me as I am.“ The varsity group and the intramural group have higher self—concepts than the non-participant group. Players get continual rein— forcement from being members of teams and being praised for playing well, scoring, or putting forth maximum El A8 effort. It is not surprising that they have positive views of themselves, and feel wanted and important. TABLE 8.——Kruskal-Wallis analysis of variance among varsity, intramural and non—participant groups to determine differences in self—concept as measured by a Semantic Differential scale. Rank Sums of Groups* (Based on Median Scores for Concept) Concept Varsity (N=28) IM (N=3l) N—P (N=27) Zglfie Me as I am 1039.0 1370.5a 1u18.5 5.26 .07C Me as I would like to b be 1099.0 1361.5 119A.5 0.35 .8A aN = 32 bN = 27 C The Mann-Whitney U test showed the varsity group had a higher self—concept than the non-participant group (U = 2A6; p = .0129), and the intramural group had a higher self—cggfiept than the non-participant group (U = 333.5; p = .0 ). *A low rank sum indicates a more favorable rating. Masculinity-Femininity Ratings In order to determine which traits were considered by the total group as differentiating between masculinity and femininity, the rating scales for these concepts were analyzed with the median test. Table 9 shows that the total group considered eight trait—pairs to differentiate between what is typically masculine and what is typically THES “9 TABLE 9.-—Median test to determine traits considered by the total group as being typical of masculinity and femininity. Median Median Traits Ratings on Ratings on X2 Masculinity Femininity Ambitious— Content 1.52 A.18 19.72* Submissive— Dominant 9.3A 5.70 116.80* Independent— Dependent 2.13 5.05 21.95* Insensitive— Sensitive 5.92 8.53 31.06* Shows feelings— Conceals feelings 7.11 A.69 23.86* Patient— Demanding A.55 2.66 9.A9* Impulsive— Deliberate 5.76 5.72 2.23 Blunt-Tactful 6.28 8.75 12.28* Idealistic- Realistic 7.09 6.13 1.7A Rational— Intuitive 3.69 3.AA .02 Passionate— Passive A.11 2.80 A.8A Cautious— Reckless A.32 2.9A 5.39 Tough—Tender 2.91 9.11 78.68* Steady- Changeable 3.35 5.35 3.53 * Significant at .01 level. +Medians of less than 6 indicate a belief that the trait stated first is typical; medians of over 6 indicate that the trait stated second is typical. Numbers 1, 2, and 3 are extremes at one end; 8, 9, and 10 are extremes at the other end. 50 feminine. They indicated that the typical woman should be very sensitive, patient, tactful, and tender. She should be ambitious and conceal feelings. She should be slightly submissive and independent. Based on total group ratings, the typical man should be very ambitious, dominant, independent, and tough. He should tend toward concealing feelings and being patient. He should be slightly insensitive and tactful. The subjects felt that an additional six trait— pairs did not differentiate between masculinity and femi— ninity. For further analysis, only the eight traits which formed the total group definition of masculinity and femininity were considered. The extension of the median test was used to ascer— tain whether there was a difference in which traits the varsity, intramural and non—participant groups felt were characteristic of masculinity and femininity. Table 10 shows that differences were found on the traits of insensitive—sensitive and shows feelings—conceals feel- ings on the masculinity scale. When compared to the total group belief with regard to the amount of sensitivity men should exhibit, the majority of the varsity and intramural players stated that men should be towards the sensitive end of the scale. The majority of non—participants felt that men should be hpfiswcflsmm one zpflqHHSOmmz pom mcmflooz Qsopw Hmpoe mom : canoe mom Ho>oa mo. so psooacasmem * + mm.: ma ma om wo.m :H :H ma noosoesnwsoe om.m m om :H :o.a NH ma ma asmpoMBIQQSHm om.m ma as ma sm.a ma as as mcaososom unsoapoa som.s ma OH ma om.m ma we as nmcaaooo mammocoo Imwcwdmom msogm *©:.m 2H :m ma om.m ma om ma m>wpflmcmm |o>wpwmsomcH 00.: 3H 2H ma 0H.H 2H 0H ma psoosodom IonUConUQH ii wa.m ma ma ma om.m Hm ma 3H pgmgwsom _5 |m>HmmHEpsm am. 3a ma we ao.a ma ma ma rempcoo nmsoepansa momuzv mamuzv Ammuzv nomuzv Asmuzv nomuzv anz 2H anamso> iuz 2H apsmso> mx +smwpoz Qsopw mx +Qmfipmz dzonw mpflmne Hopes o>onm mmsflpmm Hmpoe o>onm mwcflpmm mpwcwHSOmmz mpwcflcwsmm .zpflcflcflan can szCwH30mmE a0 ampedap on on soofimcoo masonm pcdeOflpMMQlco: one Hmnssmnpca .moamnm> mpwmsp Loans mcHELopoo op pmmp cmflooe can an cosmgopxm:n.oa mamae toward the insensitive end. The majority of the varsity players felt that men should tend toward concealing feel- ings. The intramural participants believed men should show feelings. Half of the non—participants indicated men should conceal feelings; half, that they should show feelings. With respect to the other six traits which the total group believed to differentiate between the typical man and woman, there were no differences in Opinions on the qualities of a typical male. The three groups agreed on each of the traits they felt to be characteristic of the typical female. When the subjects rated themselves on each of the traits, the total group median scores for each trait on the self-rating differed somewhat from the median scores on the femininity scale. Table 11 shows the median values. The Mann—Whitney U test showed that, in consider— ing the total concept of femininity (as defined by all eight traits), there was no difference between the ratings of self and femininity. It can be concluded, therefore, that the total group does not see itself as deviating from what it defines as being feminine. The extension of the median test was used to then see if there were any differences in how the three groups rated themselves on each of the eight traits. Table 12 indicates that differences in self-ratings among the THES 53 TABLE ll.—-Median ratings of total group for each trait on the femininity scale and self-rating scale. Median Median Traits Rating on Self- Femininity Rating Ambitious-Content A.18 A.09 Submissive-Dominant 5.70 6.21 Independent—Dependent 5.05 3.91 Insensitive—Sensitive 8.53 8.25 Shows feelings—Conceals feelings A.69 5.59 Patient—Demanding 2.66 5.05 Blunt-Tactful 8.75 6.25 Tough—Tender 9.11 6.00 TABLE 12.——Extension of the median test to determine differences among self-ratings of varsity, intramural and non—participant groups on each of 8 traits considered to differentiate between masculinity and femininity. Ratings Above Total Total Groups Median Traits Group X2 Median Varsity IM N—P (N=29) (N=3A) (N=30) Ambitious— Content A.09 12 18 10 A.30 Submissive— Dominant 6.21 13 16 10 3.76 Independent- Dependent 3.91 16 16 21 5.2A Insensitive— Sensitive 8.25 17 1A 13 2.3A Shows feelings- Conceals . feelings 5.59 l3 l9 l7 1.34 Patient— Demanding 5.05 8 17 13 6.36* Blunt—Tactful 6.25 11 18 9 6.60* Tough-Tender 6.00 7 11 1A 12.1A* * Significant at .05 level groups were found in three traits: patient—demanding, blunt—tactful, and tough—tender. On the trait patient—demanding, 21 out of 29 varsity members rated themselves as more patient than the total group median for that trait. Approximately one-half of the intramural and non-participant groups rated themselves on either side of the median. The majority of varsity players and non—participants rated themselves as more blunt than the total group median. Most of the intramural players rated themselves as more tactful than the total group median. With respect to the trait tough-tender, approximately three times as many varsity team members rated themselves at or below the total group median than above. (Below the median is toward the tough end of the scale.) Approximately two times as many intramural players rated themselves at or below the median than above. About one—half of the non—participants rated them— selves at or below the total group median. In general, varsity players, in comparison to the total group, rated themselves as being patient, blunt, and tough. Intramural participants rated themselves as being tactful and tough. Non—participants' self—ratings showed that they tended to be blunt and tender. While varsity, intramural and non-participant groups rated themselves somewhat differently on three traits they believed to be aSSOClated w1th masculinity and femininity, THE! it is of interest to note how they compare in self- ratings on the total concept of masculinity—femininity. Table 13 lists the self—ratings for the three groups on each of the eight traits. A Kruskal-Wallis analysis of variance showed that there were no differences among the three groups on self—ratings for the total concept when all eight traits were considered. TABLE l3.——Median self—ratings of varsity, intramural and non-participant groups on each of 8 traits considered to differentiate between masculinity and femininity. Group Medians on Self Rating Traits Varsity IM N-P (N=29) (N=3A) (N=30) Ambitious—Content 3.88 A.66 3.93 Dominant—Submissive 5.69 6.13 6.00 Independent—Dependent 3.7A 3.A1 A.50 Insensitive-Sensltive 8.86 8.50 8.00 Conceals feelings—Shows feelingsa 6.80 6.32 6.30 Demanding—Patienta 7.0A 6.50 7.50 Blunt-Tactful 6.18 6.67 6.00 Tough—Tender 5.75 5.90 6.39 aBipolar adjectives inverted so that all traits con— sidered by the t0tal group to be more masculine are named first. Self ratings for these traits were also inverted (e.g. if a subject rated herself 7 on submissive-dominant, a score of 5 was recorded on the trait dominant— submissive). It is possible that the specific traits characteris- tic of varsity players may be associated with success in athletics. Yet, these same trait differences apparently are minor when one Views the entire concept of femininity. 56 In summary, while other investigators (7, AA) found female athletes less feminine than non—athletes, this re— search does not support those findings. When femininity is self—defined by the total group of athletes and non— athletes, there are no apparent differences in degree of femininity among varsity, intramural and non—participant groups. Sportsmanship The Kruskal—Wallis analysis of variance was used to analyze data obtained from the Haskins and Hartman's Action— Choice Test. The results, shown in Table 1A, indicate that degree of sportsmanship does not differentiate among varsity, intramural or non—participant groups. TABLE 1A.-—Kruskal—Wallis analysis of variance among varsity, intramural and non—participant groups to determine differences in sportsmanship. Rank Sums of Groups (Based on Action- Variable Choice Scores) Valfie Of p Varsity IM N-P (N=29) (N=33) (N=30) Sportsmanship 1255.0a 1590.5 1A32.5 0.63 .73 aA high rank sum indicates a high degree of sports- manship. It might be theorized that varsity athletes have more opportunities to learn good sportsmanship and to practive apprOpriate behaviors. This study does not support that hypothesis. Nor does it support the idea that non—participants can afford to be more idealistic in their sportsmanship beliefs because they do not have to practice sportsmanlike behaviors during active competition. Summary of Results of Personal Characteristics Summarizing, differences between experimental groups were found on three personality traits: sociability, lik— ing for group action, and self—control. A difference was found in how the varsity and non—participant groups be- lieve the coach perceives them as individuals. Both varsity and intramural players have higher self-concepts than do non—participants. No differences among the three experimental groups were found in degree of femininity or sportsmanship. . L . 7. . h _.. “MM. .o. n_. CHAPTER V SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS The primary purpose of this study was to describe and compare selected personal and social background characteristics of high school girls at various levels of participation in basketball. Cattell's HSPQ, Bill's Index of Adjustment and Values, Haskins and Hartmans Action—Choice Test, several semantic differential scales, and a social background in— ventory were administered to a total of 93 girls selected from two high schools in the Flint, Michigan area. Three groups were chosen for the sample: a varsity group (N=29), an intramural group.(N=3A), and a non—participant group (Ne30). It was hypothesized that differences would exist among varsity players, intramural participants, and non- participants in: personality, connotative meaning of concepts related to basketball, self—concept, degree of femininity, sportsmanship, family influence on participa- tion, career interests, and outlook towards school. Based on the findings of this study, the following conclusions were justified: \71 (7) 59 Personality differences existed between athletes and non-athletes. a. Varsity team members were more reserved than either intramural players or non-participants. b. Varsity team members were more group oriented than either intramural players or non— participants. 0. Varsity players and intramural participants were more controlled (i.e., possessed more emotional control, will power, ambition, and conscientiousness) than the non— participants. Varsity players believed that the coach Viewed them in higher regard than did the non— participants. Varsity members and intramural players had higher self—concepts than did non-participants. The total group of subjects felt that possession of varying amounts of the following traits dif— ferentiate between what is typically masculine and what is typically feminine: ambitious— content, submissive—dominant, independent— dependent, insensitive—sensitive, shows feelings- conceals feelings, patient-demanding, blunt— tactful, and tough—tender. TH ES 10. 60 The total group, in considering the entire con- cept of femininity, did not see itself as de— viating from what it defined as being typically feminine. When femininity was self-defined by the total group of athletes and non-athletes, there were no apparent differences in degree of femininity among varsity, intramural, and non-participant groups. There was no support for the hypothesis that sportsmanship varies among the varsity, intra- mural, and non—participant groups. No differences were found among the three groups in regard to the amount of parental encouragement to participate in extracurricular activities, parental interest in sports, or frequency of family participation in recrea- tional activities. Varsity players showed a greater preference than non—participants for the future career of woman athlete. Compared to the varsity mem- bers, non-participants had a preference for the occupation of beautician. Differences in agreement with selected student- life concepts were found between groups. THES 61 a. Fewer varsity players than non—participants believe tryouts always select the best athletes. b. More intramural players than varsity players think boys should play sports instead of reading a lot. 0. More non—participants than intramural players agree with the statement that the most popular girls are not good athletes. Suggestions for Future Research In view of the fact that a number of researchers have gathered data that suggest the possible existence of a female athletic personality, it would seem that further investigation of the personalities of women in sports would be warranted. Currently there are increasing numbers of competi— tive opportunities available to women in all sports. This is especially true at the college and university level. Closed intercollegiate competition in a variety of sports for women at the national and international level is a very recent development. College women now have the oppor- tunity to compete in national intercollegiate tournaments, sponsored by the Division for Girls and Women's Sports, and in the World University Games, under the auspices of the United States Collegiate Sports Council. It appears to the writer that an analysis of the personalities of the 62 participants in these intercollegiate events would be advisable as an initial step in gathering information on the female athlete. Specific suggestions relative to accumulating a body of data on women competitors are as follows: 1. The effort should be a cooperative one on the part of researchers in various sections of the country so that efforts will not be duplicated unnecessarily. Data should be gathered on participants in a wide variety of sports. All investigators should use identical instru- mentation so that direct comparisons can be made between athletes in different sports. The differential effect of using parametric and nonparametric statistical procedures for analysis of data should be studied. Normative data on comparable non-athlete groups should be gathered. The body of descriptive raw data should be housed in a central location, such as with the DGWS Research Committee, and should be made available to any researcher on request. 1 1 THE-:5 BIBLIOGRAPHY 63 10. ll. BIBLIOGRAPHY Allport, G. W. Personality: A Psychological Inter- pretation. New York: Henry Holt & Co., 1938. Amateur Athletic Union. Study of the Effects of Athletic Competition on Girls and Women. New York: Amateur Athletic Union, n.d. American Medical Association. Sports opportunities for girls and women, JOHPER, 35: A6, Nov.— Dec., 196A. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Develop— ment. Perceiving, Behaving, Becoming. Wash., D.C.: NEA, 1962. Astrand, P. 0., and others. Girl swimmers, Acta Paediatrica Supplementum, 1A7: 1963. Baker, Mary C. Factors which may influence the participation of girls 15—25 years of age, Res. Quart., 11: 126—131, May, 19A0. Bell, Mary M. Measurement of selected outcomes of participation in girls' high school inter— scholastic basketball. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Iowa, 1955. Bettleheim, Bruno. Growing up female. Harpers Maga- zine, 225: 120, Oct., 1962. Biddulph, Lowell G. Athletic achievement and the personal and social adjustment of high school boys, Res. Quart. 25: 1-7, March, 195A° Bills, R. E., Vance, E. L. & McLean, O. S. An index of adjustment and values, J. of Consulting Psychology, XV: 257-261, 1951. Bills, Robert F. Manual, Index of Adjustment and Values. Auburn: Dept. of Psychology, Alabama Polytechnic Institute, n.d. 6A 12. 13. 1A. 15. 16. l7. l8. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 65 Booth, E. G., Jr. Personality traits of athletes as measured by the MMPI, Res. Quart., 29: 127- 138, May, 1958. Borg, Walter R. Ability grouping in the public schools, J. Exper. Educ., 3A: 1—97, Winter, 1965. Carter, G. C. and Shannon, J. R. Adjustment and per— sonality traits of athletes and non-athletes, School Rev., A8: 127-130, 19A0. Cassel, Russell and Childers, Richard. A study of certain attributes of A5 high school varsity football team members by use of psychological test scores, J. Educ. Research, 57: 6A—67, Oct., 1963. Cassidy, Rosalind. Critical issues in physical edu- cation and athletics, J. of Health, Physical Educ. and Rec., 35: 16—17, June, 196A. Cattell, Raymond B. and Beloff, Halla. Handbook for the Junior—Senior High School Personality Questionnaire. Champaign, Ill.: Institute for Personality and Ability Testing, 1962. Cochran, W. G. Some methods for strengthening the common Chi Square tests, Biometrics, 10: A17- A51, 195A. Coffey, Margaret A. The sportswoman - then and now, J. of Health, Physical Educ. and Rec., 36: 38, Feb., 1965. Combs, Arthur W. A perceptual View of the adequate personality. In ASCD Yearbook, Perceiving, Behaving, Belonging. Wash., D.C.: NEA, 1962. Connolly, Olga. Let them participatefl, DGWS Track and Field Guide, 196A—1966, pp. 53-56. Cowell, Charles C. The contributions of physical activity to social development, Res. Quart., 31: 286-306, May, 1960. Cowell, C. C. and Ismail, A. H. Relationships be— tween selected social and physical factors, Res. Quart., 33: A0—A3, March, 1962. 2A. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 3A. 35. 36. 66 Division for Girls and Women's Sports. DGWS state- ment on competition for girls and women, JOHPER, 36: 3A, Sept., 1965. Division for Girls and Women's Sports. Guidelines for interscholastic athletic programs for junior high school girls, JOHPER, 37: 36, Sept., 1966. Division for Girls and Women's Sports. Statement of Beliefs. Washington, D.C.: NEA, 1965. Doudlah, Anna May. The relationship between the self-concept, the body—image, and the movement— concept of college women with low and average motor ability. Unpublished master's thesis, Wogan's College, University of North Carolina, 19 2. Edwards, Allen L. Manual for the Edwards Personal Preference Schedule. New York: The Psychologi- cal Corporation, 195A. Edwards, Allen L. Statistical Methods for the Be- havioral Sciences. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1963. Edwards, Allen L. Techniques of Attitude Scale Construction. New York: Appleton-Century- Crofts, Inc., 1957. Erdelyi, G. J. Gynecological survey of female ath— letes, J. of Sports Med. and Phys. Fit., 2: 17A—179, Sept., 1962. Espenschade, Anna. Women and competitive sport. Paper presented at the First Institute for Girls' Sports, Norman, Oklahoma, Nov., 1963. Fink, Ruth. Now and then, NAPECW Newsletter: A, April, 1965. Flanagan, Lance. A study of some personality traits of different physical activity groups, Res. Quart., 22: 3, Oct., 1951. Flemming, E. G. Personality and the athletic girl, School and Society, 39: 166-169, 193A. Foehrenbach, Lenore K. Why girls choose after-school sports, JOHPER, 2A: 3A, June, 1953. THEE 37. 38. 39. A0. A1. A2. A3. AA. A5. A6. A7. A8. 67 Garrett, Henry E. Statistics in Psychology and Edu— cation. New York: David McKay Company, Inc., 1958. Gifford, Delene. A socio—psychological descriptive study of the highly skilled woman gymnast. Unpublished master's thesis, Michigan State University, 1968. Harres, Bea. Attitudes of students toward women's athletic competition, Res. Quart., 39: 278— 28A, May, 1968. Haskins, Mary J. Problem solving test of sportsman— ship, Res. Quart., 31: 16—23, March, 1960. Hays, William. Statistics for Psychologists. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1963. Hendry, L. B. Assessment of personality traits in the coach—swimmer relationship, and a prelimi— nary examination of the father—figure stereo— type, Res. Quart., 39:‘ 5A3-551, Oct., 1968. Hisey, Carol Nan. A comparison of selected physical performances and emotional characteristics of two groups of former high school athletes in girls basketball. Unpublished master's thesis, University of North Carolina, Greensboro, 1957. Ibrahim, Hilmi. Comparison of temperament traits among intercollegiate athletes and physical education majors, Res. Quart., 38: 615-622, Dec., 1967. Isenberger, Wilma. Psychological research relating to changing concepts of women, Biennial Record, NAPECW, 1955—57. Wash., D.C.: NAPECW, 1958. Johnson, Warren R., Hutton, Daniel 0., & Johnson, Granville B., Jr. Personality traits of some champion athletes as measured by two projec— tive tests: Rorschach and H-T—P, Res. Quart., 25: A8A—A85, Dec., 195A. Jokl, Ernst. Sport as leisure, Quest, IV: 37-A7, April, 1965. Jokl, Ernst. The athletic status of women, Amateur Athlete, 33: 1A, May, 1962. THEE A9. 50. 51. 52. 53. 5A. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. 68 Kane, J. E. Personality and physical ability. In Kitsuo Kato, ed., Proceedings of International Congpess of Sport Sciences, 196A. Tokyo: Japanese Union of Sport Sciences, 1966. Kane, J. E. and Callaghan, J. L. Personality traits in tennis players, British Lawn Tennis, July, 1965. Kelley, Earl C. The fully functioning self. In ASCD Yearbook, Perceiving, Behaving, Becoming. Wash., D.C.: NEA, 1962. Keogh, John F. The relationship of motor ability and athletic participation in certain standardized personality measures, Res. Quart., 30: A38— AA5, Dec., 1959. Kerlinger, Fred N. Foundations of Behavioral Re- search. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 196A. Kjeldsen, Erick. A study to determine the relation— ships between the Edwards Personal Preference Schedule and participation in gymnastics. Unpublished master's thesis, Springfield College, 1961. Klaus, E. J. and Noack, H. Frau und Sport. Stutt- gart: Georg Thieme Verlag, 1961. ITGer.) Kroll, Walter. Sixteen personality factor profiles of collegiate wrestlers, Res. Quart., 38: A9— 57, March, 1967. Kroll, Walter and Carlson, B. Robert. Discriminant function and hierarchial grouping analysis of karate participants' personality profiles, Res. Quart., 38: A05—A11, Oct., 1967. "“— Kroll, Walter and Petersen, Kay H. Personality factor profiles of collegiate football teams, Res. Quart., 36: A33-AAO, Dec., 1965. Lakie, William L. Personality characteristics of certain groups of intercollegiate athletes, Res. Quart., 33: 566-573, Dec., 1962. LaPlace, John P. Personality and its relationship to success in professional baseball, Res. Quart., 25: 313—319, Oct., 195A. 61. 62. 63. 6A. 65. 66. 67. 69. 70. 71. 69 Ley, Katherine. Value in sports and athletics as they relate to personal and social value sys— tems. Paper presented at the Midwest AHPER Convention, April, 1963. Malumphy, Theresa M. Assessment of personality and general background of women athletes in re— gional and national intercollegiate competi— tion. Paper delivered at the AAHPER Conven— tion, St. Louis, March, 1968. Malumphy, Theresa M. Personality of women athletes in intercollegiate competition, Res. Quart., 39: 610-620, Oct., 1968. Marler, Rose M. Personality variables of extramural participants and non—participants among women physical education majors. Unpublished master's thesis, Illinois State Normal University, 1962. Maslow, A. H. Some basic propositions of a growth and self-actualization psychology. In ASCD Yearbook, Perceiving, Behaving, Becoming. Wash., D.C.: NBA, 1962. McCue, Betty. Scale for evaluating attitudes towards competition. Res. Quart., 2A: 205, May, 1953. McLean, William D. The relationship of the degree of athletic participation to social and personal adjustment in selected twelfth grade male stu- dents, Edmonton, Alberta. Unpublished master's thesis, University of Washington, 1961. Merrimen, J. Burton. Relationship of personality traits to motor ability, Res. Quart., 31: 163—173, May, 1960. Neal, Patsy E. Personality traits of U. S. women athletes who participated in the 1959 Pan— American Games as measured by the Edwards Personal Preference Schedule. Unpublished master's thesis, University of Utah, 1963. Nelson, Dale 0. Leadership in sports, Res. Quart., 37: 268-275, May, 1966. Nelson, D. 0. and Langer, P. Getting to know your players, Athletic Journal, XLIV: 39, Sept., 1963. THEE 72. 73. 7A. 75. 76. 77. 78. 79. 80. 81. 82. 70 Ogilvie, Bruce C. Psychological consistencies within the personality of high level competitors, J. Amer. Med. Assoc., 205: 780—786, Sept., 1968. Ogilvie, Bruce C. The unanswered question: competi— tion, its effect upon femininity, Swimming Technique, A: 83-85, Oct., 1967. Ogilvie, Bruce C. What is an athlete? Paper given at the AAHPER convention, Las Vegas, Nev., March 12, 1967. Osgood, C. E. The nature and measurement of meaning, Psych. Bulletin, A9: 192—237, 1952. Osgood, C. E. and Suci, G. J. A measure of relation determined by both mean differences and profile information, Psych. Bulletin, A9: 251-262, 1952. Osgood, C. E., Suci, G. J., & Tannenbaum, P. H. The Measurement of Meaning. Urbana, Ill.: Uni- versity of Illinois Press, 1957. Patterson, Jane K. The effects of competitive swim— ming training on girls in relation to selected anthropometric and strength measurements, Swimming Technique, 2: 1A, April, 1965. Peterson, Sheri, Weber, Jerome C. & Trousdale, Wil— liam W. Personality traits of women in team sports vs. women in individual sports, Eggs Quart., 38: 686—690, Dec., 1967. Phillips, Marjorie, Fox, Katherine & Young, Olive. Sports activity for girls, JOHPER, 30: 25, Dec., 1959. Ramsey, Lorene. A comparison of the personality variables and attitudes toward physical educa— tion between highly skilled girls participating in varsity programs and in girls' athletic association programs. Unpublished master's thesis, University of North Carolina, Greensboro, 1962. Rubin, Theodore I. A psychiatrist's notebook (monthly column), McCall's, XCIV: 28, Sept., 1967. 83. 8A. 85. 86. 87. 88. 89. 90. 91. 92. 93. 71 Ruffer, William A. A study of extreme physical activity groups of young men, Res. Quart., 36: 183-196, May, 1965. Rushall, Brent S. Personality profiles and a theory of behavior modification for swimmers, Swimming Technique, A: 66—71, Oct., 1967. Schendel, Jack. Psychological differences between athletes and non-participants in athletics at three educational levels, Res. Quart., 36: 52—67, March, 1965. Schmidt, Bobbie N. A comparative study of ninth grade participants and non—participants in the intramural sports program in 0. Henry Junior High School, Austin, Texas. Unpublished master's thesis, University of Texas, 1959. Schoenfield, Albert. Age group teens dominate women's swimming world, Amateur Athlete, 38: 19, August, 1967. Scott, M. G. The contribution of physical activity to psychological development, Res. Quart., 31: 307-320, May, 1960. Selltiz, C., Jakoda, M., Deutsch, M., and Cook, S. W. Attitude scaling. In M. Jakoda and N. Warren, eds., Attitudes. Baltimore: Penguin Books, Inc., 1966. Seymour, Emery W. Comparative study of certain be— havior characteristics of participant and non- participant boys in Little League baseball, Res. Quart., 27: 338—3A6, Oct., 1956. Siegel, Sidney. Nonparametric Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences. New York: McGraw—Hill, 1956. Slusher, Howard S. Personality and intelligence characteristics of selected high school ath— letes and nonathletes, Res. Quart., 35: 539- 5A5, Dec., 196A. Small, Ella May. Some sociological factors in the changing status of women, Biennial Record of the NAPECW, 1955—57. Wash., D.C.: NAPECW, 1958. 9A. 95.‘ 96. 97. 98. 99. 100. 101. 102. 103. 10A. Sperling, A. P. The relationship between personality adjustment and achievement in physical educa- tion activities, Res. Quart., 13: 351-363, Oct., 19A2. Staines, J. W. The self-picture as a factor in the classroom, Brit. J. Educ. Psych., XXVIII: 97—111, June, 1958. Steinhaus, Arthur. What are we doing to our girls? JOHPER, 35: 6, Nov.—Dec., 196A. Stiles, Merritt H. Motivation for sports participa- tion in the community. Paper delivered at the International Symposium on Physical Activity ang60ardiovascular Health, Toronto, October, 19 . Stish, Eugene E. A comparative study of personality traits in athletic and non-athletic college men. Unpublished master's thesis, State University of Iowa, 1950. Symonds, P. M. Origins of Personality. In Don E. Hamachek, ed., Human Dynamics in Psychology and Education. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, Inc., 1968. Thorpe, JoAnne. Personality patterns of successful women physical educators, Res. Quart., 29: 83-92, March, 1958. Thurstone, L. L. and Chave, E. J. The Measurement of Attitudes. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1929. Tillman, Kenneth. Relationship between physical fitness and selected personality traits, Res. Quart., 36: A83-A89, Dec., 1965, Trekell, Marianna. The effect of some cultural changes upon the sports and physical education activities of American women . . . 1860—1960. Paper presented at the AAHPER convention, Dallas, Texas, March, 1965. Tukey, J. W. Comparing individual means in the analysis of variance, Biometrics, 5: 99—11A, 19A9. THEE 105. 106. 107. 108. 109. 110. 111. 73 Ulrich, Celeste. On your mark - get set. Paper delivered at the AAHPER Convention, Chicago, 1966. Ulrich, Celeste. The tomorrow mind, JOHPER, 35: 17, Oct., 196A. Ulrich, Celeste. Women and sport. In Warren R. Johnson, ed., Science and Medicine of Exer- cise and Sport. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1960. Weber, Robert J. Relationship of physical fitness to success in college and to personality, Res. Quart., 2A: A7l-A7A, Dec., 1953. Werner, Alfred C. and Gottheil, Edward. Personality development and participation in college athletics, Res. Quart., 37: 126—131, March, 1966. Whittle, H. Douglas. Effects of elementary school physical education upon aspects of physical, motor, and personality development, Res. Quart., 32: 2A9-260, May, 1961. “_ Zion, Leela C. Body concept as it relates to self— concept, Res. Quart., 36: A90—A95, Dec., 1965. THEE APPENDIX I INSTRUMENTS FKHW Inventory Semantic Differential Masculinity-Femininity—Se1f Scales 7A Name FKHW INVENTORY How much encouragement to participate in extracur— ricular activities (chorus, clubs, drama, sports, etc.) do you get from your parents? considerable encouragement some encouragement no opinion usually voiced some discouragement much discouragement (DQOO‘QJ What would you say most closely approximates your father's general interest in sports? very interested slightly interested neutral slightly disinterested most disinterested (DQOO‘SD What would you say most closely approximates your mother's general interest in sports? very interested slightly interested neutral slightly disinterested most disinterested (DD—IOU‘W How often does your family participate in sports or recreational activities? a regularly b. occasionally 0 seldom d never What do you think is most important in playing a game? Number the items from MOST important (1) to LEAST important (3). a. to play it as well as you are able to b. to beat your opponent c. to play it fairly 75 Listed below are side the job you side the one you so on to 6 which to have LEAST OF teacher 76 some jobs. Please place a 1 be— would like to have MOST, a 2 be- would like to have NEXT MOST, and indicates the one you would like singer in a night club female athlete scientist owner—operator of a beauty shop executive in a bank Do you agree or disagree that: (please check the appropriate statement) Agree Disagree A person works best when he works by himself. School tryouts always select the best athletes. Any person with desire and ability has to take a stand against the majority. It's best to live for today; tomorrow will take care of itself. The knowledge girls have about sports is low. All the students have a change to run things around here. Overall, school courses are dull and uninteresting. Boys should play sports instead of reading a lot. THEE 77 Agree Disagree The most popular girls are not good athletes. Boys and girls should compete in sports. THEE ‘ SEMANTIC DIFFERENTIAL INSTRUCTIONS We would like to enlist your cooperation as a par— ticipant in a study designed to measure the meaning of certain concepts. The task involves judging a number of concepts (such as ME, FATHER, etc.) against a series of descriptive scales. The entire test should not take longer than 10 or 15 minutes. In taking this test please make your judgments on the basis of what these concepts mean to you. On each page of this booklet you will find a different concept to be judged and beneath it is a set of scales. Please rate the concept on each of these scales in order. If you feel that the concept at the top of the page if very closely related to one end of the scale, you should place your check mark as follows: Patient X : : : : : : : Impatient If you feel that the concept is quite closely re- lated to one or the other end of the scale (but not ex— tremely) you should place your check mark as follows: Patient : X : : : : : : Impatient If the concept seems only slightly related to one side as_opposed to the other side (but is not really neutral) then you should check as follows: Patient : : X : : : : : Impatient The direction toward which you check, of course, depends upon which of the two ends of the scale seems most characteristic of the thing you are judging. If you consider the concept to the neutral on the scale, both sides of the scale equally associated with the concept, or if the scale is completely irrelevant or un— related to the concept, then you should place your check mark in the middle space. Patient : : : X : : : : Impatient Please place your check marks in the middle of the spaces (this is: : X ' :) not in the boundaries (not this: :__X z). Please be sure you check every scale 78 79 for every concept; do not omit any. Never put more than one check mark on a single scale. Do not try to remember how you checked items earlier in the test. Make each item a separate and independent judgment. Work at a fairly high speed through the test. Do not spend too much time on any of the items. It is your first impressions, the immediate "feelings" about the items that we want. On the other hand, of course, do not be careless. There will undoubtedly be wide differences in the degree of familiarity you feel for each of the concepts. Perhaps you won't feel as though you're "Qualified" to make ratings for one or another reason. However, please go ahead and complete all the ratings even though it may be difficult or seem to you that you "just don't have the information." Your name and test results will be held strictly confidential as is customary and is our ethical responsi- bility in investigations of this nature. Please rate: ME AS I REALLY AM valuable : : : : : : : worthless clean : : : : : : : dirty tasty : : : : : : : distasteful fast : : : : : : : slow active : : : : : : : passive hot : : : : : : : cold large : : : : : : : small strong : : : : : : : weak deep : : : : : : : shallow THEE Please rate: valuable clean tasty fast active hot large strong deep Please rate: valuable clean tasty fast active hot large strong deep ME AS MY COACH SEES ME worthless dirty distasteful slow passive cold small weak shallow COACH AS SHE REALLY IS worthless dirty distasteful slow passive cold small weak shallow valuable clean tasty fast active hot large strong deep valuable clean tasty fast active hot large strong deep Please rate: TEAM AS IT IS Please rate: worthless dirty distasteful slow passive cold small weak shallow BASKETBALL AS IT IS worthless dirty distasteful slow passive cold small weak shallow THEE Please rate: valuable clean tasty fast active hot large strong deep Please rate: valuable clean tasty fast active hot large strong deep ME AS I WOULD LIKE TO BE worthless dirty distasteful slow passive cold small weak shallow FANS AS THEY REALLY ARE worthless dirty distasteful slow passive cold small weak shallow 83 Name Below are 14 pairs of descriptive traits at the ends of an 11 point scale. Circle the number which best provides a picture of what you consider to be a feminine girl or woman. Numbers 1 and 11 indicate extremes and number 6 indicates that you feel she should be half way inbetween. ambitious 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 content submissive 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ll dominant independent 1 2 3 A 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 dependent insensitive l 2 3 4 S 6 7 8 9 10 ll sensitive shows feelings I 2 3 4 5 6 7 i 8 9 10 11 conceals feelings patient 1 2 3 A 5 6 7 8 9 10 ll demanding impulsive l 2 3 4 S 6 7 8 9 10 11 deliberate blunt 1 2 3 4 S 6 7 8 9 10 11 tactful idealistic 1 2 3 A 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 -realistic rationa1* 1 2 3 4 S 6 7 8 9 10 11 intuitive # passionate l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 passive cautious 1 2 3 A 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 reckless tough I 2 3 A 5 6 7 8 9 10 ll tender steady 1 2 3 A 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 changeable * - acting with reason or understanding # — acting by insight rather than reason .- u 84 Name Below are 14 pairs of descriptive traits at the ends of an 11 point scale. Circle the number which best provides a pieture of what you consider to be a ‘masculine boy or man. Numbers 1 and 11 indicate extremes and number 6 indicates that you feel he should be half way inbetween. ambitious 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 submissive 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 independent 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 insensitive 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 shows feelings 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 patient 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 impulsive 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 blunt 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 idealistic) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 rational* 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 passionate l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 cautious 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 tough 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 steady 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 * — acting with reason or understanding # - acting by insight rather than reason 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 11 11 11 11 11 ll 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 content dominant dependent sensitive conceals feelings demanding deliberate tactful realistic intuitive # passive reckless tender changeable ES H T W 85 Name Below are 14 pairs of descriptive traits arranged at the ends of an 11 point scale. Circle the number on each scale which best indicates how you feel you are. Numbers 1 and 11 represent extremes and 6 represents neutrality. ambitious l 2 3 4‘ 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 content submissive 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 dominant independent 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 dependent insensitive 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 sensitive shows feelings 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 conceals feelings patient 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 demanding impulsive l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ll deliberate blunt l 2 3 4 S 6 7 8 9 10 11 tactful idealistic 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 realistic rational* 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 intuitive# passionate 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 passive cautious 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 reckless tough 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 tender steady 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ll changeable * - acting with reason or understanding # - acting by insight rather than reason THEE " _.._.._ ' ‘-. .. ._:=‘.'.- .- ....3 .- ' ’ - . M ‘ .. "’ '- '._:- zit-N3 .m _£ '- any": .r "II-‘ln-‘JJ ‘55:"! '.' 4:" . -' ‘ ' 7 ' . -'- f' ' ', . ‘ v . . .. I. . - ' - | ' n I . an . . I._ . ' r-r \ ' l' ' I 9 2' I .- ‘ ' . ' ' . ' .4 '9 I l " ' I ‘ f . ' - ' - ._ .' ;- ‘ .' I I I : I . I f ‘ . - ': -. . 1 . . _ \. , ' , _ . . :’ I'I‘ F: ' § 1 ,' t 1 . . . . . . - . ' .‘l i. _ , . l . . _ “"3"- . : ' . . " E -.\ . :.' ‘ - , ‘ ~ . ---.' l', l j — . -i - _ . ' :1 1-"', I . . '. ‘ . - -. . - 1 . f" I . . _.- p,_ -. -_ ,.:.._ . _, . L . '- . ._, _.. . .. .; . I APPENDIX II RAW DATA FKHW Inventory Cattell's HSPQ Bill's Index and Action-Choice Test Semantic Differential Masculinity-Femininity-Self Scales 86 THEE FKHW Inventory-Varsity Group 87 "-3 [\ QQQde=nEH maducm50Q unwfiumm mmcfimoom mdmoocoo mmcaaowm mzozm m>HuHmCmm o>fiufimcomcH acoucmaoo ucovcmacucH unmadeon c>HmmHEn=m ucmpcoc mJOHuHQE< manmmmcmzo zemccm ebocwe cmzofi mmmaxowm m30wp3mo m>fimmma camcofimmmm c>ficszccH Hmcoasmm cfiumaamcm cacmsamccH ququB pczam mumpmbflamo o>fimH3QEH wcfipzmswo pcwflumm mwcfificwm mamwocoo mmcfiamcm mzozm o>flpflmcom m>HuflmcmmcH uconcmumo ucmvcoammcH ucmcfieom m>fimnflEnjm ucmucoo muoHsHDE< .oz cccqczm 10 10 10 03 a 1.()O Self Masculinity manmmwcwno homopm pounce nwsoe mmofixomm m:0«u:Mu o>wwmdm mumcoammmm c>chzceH choficcm owumaflaom ofiumaammUH thuomfi uCSHm ouahmnaawo o>fimH3aEH MCHUCMEmQ unmauMm mwcfifimwm wamcocoo mmcfiawmm mzonm m>Hpfimcwm o>ficfimcomcH pchConQ pcmucmaomcH acmcaeoo o>HmmHEbzm uncuzoo msofiufinE< mammowcmno zommum pounce cwsoe mmwaxomm macauzmo o>fimmmm conceammmm m>apfisceH Hmzoacmm cacmHHMmm oasmfiamceH flange uezsm 10 10 10 THE: TriE: 1.0:1 Femininity .cpmwocAHwa m>amasosH mcwocwsoo pecapcm mwcfiamom mdooozoo mefiHmom.msonm - m>dpfiwcom o>fipfimcomcH ucovcoooa pcmucoaoocH ucmcHan o>fimwfisbow pcoucoo wSOHpHnE< mammowcmco mommpm hoocce nwsoe mwoaxomm m30Hpomo m>fimmmm oumCOHmmmm c>acaspeH deconsmm cfinmflficcm cficmfiamccH finances cczsm mumsoofiaoa m>HmH5QEH wCHUCmEmo pcofiumm mmcfiamom wamoocoo meHHmmm mzocm m>fiufimcom c>fipfimcmmcH pccocmamo pcmccmamucH. pcmcfieoo m>HmmfiEnom ucmpcoo mooHpHnE< .oz pccncsm 30 10 10 10 31 10 32 33 34 11 ll 10 10 35 36 37 38 39 10 ll 11 10 11 4O 41 42 43 44 11 10 10 11 ll 10 45 46 47 10 ll 10 48 49 5o 11 11 51 52 53 54 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 55 10 56 10 57 58 10 11 11 11 10 11 10 59‘ 11 6O 1, 11 61 10 10 '62 63 1C)2 Self Masculinity mammowcmno museum sconce swsoe wmmaxoom m30Hpsmo o>ammmm mum20Hmmmm m>Hpfidch Hmcofipmm cficmaammm cficmfiammcH thpowe . undam commonfiaoo o>fimHSQEH wCfiUCMEmo pcmfipmm mMCHHmmm mammocoo mwcfiamom mzonm m>flpfimcmm o>HufimcomsH ucoocmama ucoocmamocH pamCHEoo o>fimmHEoom pcmucoo macapfice< manmmwcmco scmccm smegma nwsoe wmmaxomx macapswo m>fimmmm omeOHmmmm ceasesch accesses oscmfiamcm cacmaacccH fineness pcsflm 10 10 10 10 10 11 10 10 ll 11 10 10 11 ll 11 10 ll 10 10 10 10 11 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 11' 43 1C)3 Femininity oumpmnaflmo o>HmH=QEH wcfinzmsmo uzmfiumm mmCHwam mamwocoo mwcammcm mzocw m>apfimcwm o>HuamnomcH ucuosoaon pcuucwnoucH acacfieoa w>ummHEnsm pcoucoo mnOHufinE< manmwwcmno hummuw nmocma cw309 mmmaxomm wsofiuzmo m>Hmmmm camcoummmm c>anfizucH Hmcofiuwm cficmaflmcm cacmafimceH Hzcccme cessm wumponfifioo m>HmH3nEH mcfimcmEmo uCMHpMA wmcfiawom mamoozoo mmcfiaocm mzonm o>wuawcow w>auamcmwcH acouzmnmo pcmuzonmucH u:8:«Eoo o>ammHEnsm pcwpcou m30HaHnE< .oz pcmficzm 10 1 6 6 65 10 10 85 86 10 87 88 89 104 Self Masculinity oflpmomcmno homopm amoeba emzoe mmonoom msofiusmo o>ammmm mprOwaom c>apasscH Hmcoaucm cacmfiamcm oacmaacocH szuome pCSHm cumsccfiaco o>fimasaEH wcfiosmEoo pcmfipmm mwcfiammm mamoocoo mwcfiawom mzonm m>fipfimcom o>fipHmCmmcH pcoocmaoo pcoocmammcH ucmcfieoa w>fimmflEp3m pcwpcou msoficans< canmmwcmco scmcpm poocme zwzoe mmexoom macapzmo m>fimmmm omeOHmmmm 6>HBHSBcH Hmcoascm cfipmfiflmcm cficmaamccH finances pczflm 4 11 ll 11 10 11 10 ll 11 10 10 10 10 11 10 C) /0 ll 11 10 ll 11 are 11 11 10 11 11 11 10 11 10 10 10 10 10 11 10 10 11 10 10 r.) 10 11 11