THE RELATIONSHIP OF SEXUAL SYMBOL EDENTIFICATLON MD PREFERENCE TO NEUROTICISM AND EXTRAVEfi-SLON-SNTRQVERSWN Thesis §or flea Eng!“ of Ph. D. MECHKMN STATE SNWERSETY Frederick Wfliiam 52021:: W'M THESIS This is to certify that the thesis entitled THE RELATIONSHIP OF SEXUAL SYMBOL IDENTIFICATION AND PREFERENCE TO NEUROTICISM AND EXTRAVERSION-IN TROVERSION presented by Frederick William Rohrs has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for _Eh.._D_.__ degree in MOLD gy Major professor Datejuly 13 t 1964 0-169 LIBRARY Michigan State University ABSThACT THE nELATIOTSHIP OF SEXUAL SYMBOL IDENTIFICATION AND PnEFEfiENCE TO EEthTICISM RED EXTRAVEKSICN~INTthERSION by Frederick William Rohrs Previous research has indicated that, on the whole, peeple are able to differentiate between male and female sexual symbols derived from Freudian dream theory. There have also been indications that individual differences exist in the ability to correctly differentiate between sexual symbols. The present study was an attempt to extend pre- vious findings a) by determining whether Js could identify abstract Freudian sexual symbols from among other abstract symbols that had been jud3ed sexually neutral, b) by determining whether the personality dimensions of neuroti— cism and extraversion-introversion were related to the ability to correctly identify Freudian sexual symbols, and c) by determining whether the personality variables of neuro- ticism and extraversion-introversion were related to 85'. differential preferences between conventional sexual symbols, Freudian sexual symbols and symbols that were sexually neutral by conventional and Freudian standards. Frederick William hohrs It was hypothesized that the more neurotic a person was, the more he would respond to sexually neutral symbols in both the symbol identification and symbol pre— ference tasks. The reasoning for this was that sexual sym— bols, conventional and Freudian, would be avoided because of their association with repressed sexual conflicts. In addition, it was hypothesized that relatiJely introverted Ss would show more ability in correctly iden- tifying abstract Freudian sexual symbols and would also show a greater preference for Freudian sexual symbols than relatively extraverted Ss. These hypotheses were based on Jungian theory which states that introverts have a greater interest in inner impulse life than extraverts. Conversely, relatively extraverted 88 were expected to show a greater preference for conventional symbolism and less ability in identifying Freudian sexual symbols than relatively intro- verted 83. Results showed that a sample of l88 single male (n = 98) and female (n = 90) college students could cor- rectly identify abstract Freudian sexual symbolism from among sexually neutral symbols significantly above chance eXpectancy. However, neuroticism and extraversion-intro- version, as derived from Freudian and Jungian theory respec- tively, and measured by the Maudsley Personality Inventory, Frederick William dohrs were not significantly related to symbol identification ability possibly because of an inadequate dispersion of scores on the symbol identification task. Problems of re- search design related to complex theoretical prepositions were also cited as possible reasons for failure to achieve expected results. In the case of neuroticism, conflicts other than sexual difficulties may have existed as the cause of the Ss' neuroticism, and for the extraversion-introversion dimension, both attributes, extraversion and introversion may have been simultaneously Operating in the same person to an unknown degree. In the case of symbol preferences between conven- tional, Freudian and neutral symbols, the existence of an attenuated dispersion of scores and strong Q, relatively un— controlled response biases on the symbol preference task left the interpretation of results largely Open to question. However, the obtained results gave some tentative indication that neuroticism and extraversion-introversion as derived from psychoanalytic theory and measured by the Naudsley Personality Inventory were not related to symbol preferences though further research is needed for confirmation of this finding. Future research in this area must take into account the theoretical problems which were cited as well as devise Frederick William nohrs methods for greater control of response biases than existed in the present study. 7 Approved:_JééZ2é2:”EgzgégLéjdégLfiéLL.h__~_ *‘ " /' Thesis Adviser Date: 7—-/3-6‘f THE RELATIONSHIP OF SEXUAL SYMBOL IDENTIFICATION AND PhEFEhENCE TO NEUROTICISM AND E TRAVERSILN-INTROVERSICN By Frederick William Rohrs A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State university in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Psychology 1964 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The author wishes to express his appreciation to his doctoral committee chairman, Dr. Albert I. Rabin, and to committee members, Dr. C. L. Winder, Dr. John R. Hurley and Dr. Robert F. McMichael for their many helpful suggestions which made this research possible. He is also greatly indebted to Dr. Milton S. Solomon, Chief Psychologist, Wayne County General Hospital and to staff psychologists L. L. McKenzie, Margaret Bentley and Elaine Oxman who acted as clinical judges in this research. In addition, the author is very grateful to his wife, Jan, whose evolving stenc— graphic talents greatly facilitated the preparation of the manuscript. Frederick W. Rohrs ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter I. PhOBLEM............ .............. . ............. II. BACKGnOUND OF Ti-iEOitY AND hESVCABCH.... . . . . . . . Theoretical Background Symbol Functions Symbol Types Neuroticism and Extraversion-Introversion Neuroticism Extraversion—Introversion Theoretical Summary and Conclusions Review of Research Subject Variables and Hypnosis Studies Subject Variables and Symbol Sorting and Preference Studies Age Differences Personality Differences Sex Differences Differences Due to Intelligence Summary and Conclusions from Previous Research III. i-IYPOTI-EESES TSTPD. IV. METHOD ........ . ............... Sample and Population iii \N IO 10 14 l6 17 18 [U ix) {U N 29 53 .35 37 41 41 Chapter Page Procedures 41 Symbol Test I 42 Symbol Test II 44 haudsley Personality Inventory 46 Control Measures 47 General Instructions and Administration 47 V. RESULTS.................. ......... ...... ..... .. 49 Results Pertaining to Hypotheses 49 Supplementary Results 55 Comparison with MP1 Normative Data 51 VI. DISCUSSION....................... ..... ......... 65 Hypotheses 65 Supplementary Analyses 71 Comparison with MPI Normative Data 72 VII. SUrllllhTARYooooooooooococo00000000000000.0000.coco. 7?) VIII. I{I:Ei{m‘r‘CESOOOOOOOOO cccccccccc 0.000000000000000. 01 I" IX. APPSNDICES............................. ....... . 79 I. Symbol Selection (Judgments) 79 II. Sample Instrument 82 Symbol Test I 85 Symbol Test II 87 Maudsley Personality Inventory 90 WAIS Information Subtest -94 III. Individual Subject Scores 96 iv Table l. 2. (I) LIST OF TABLES Sample Age and Estimated IQ..................... Medians, Means, Standard Deviations and Ranges of Scores Obtained on tne Maudsley Personality Inventory and Svmool Tests I and II........... Chance Probabilities of Obtaining Scores of O to 12 on Symbol Test I.-..-...................... melationships Between the Maudsley Personality Inventory and Symbol Tests I and II (Pearson rs and Contingency Coefficients).............. Contingency Coefficients Between RBI N-Scores, E-Scores and ST II Conventional (C) anl Freudian (Fl Scores for Separate Groups of Masculine and Feminine Items............... Differential Preference Frequencies for Masculine and Feminine Items of Symbol Test II by Male 311d Fen‘ale (is.0.00.0.0.0...OOOOOOOOOQOOOQOOOOO Sex Difference Item Analysis for Symbol Test I I ‘\ f1} requencies of correct and inCorrect symbol identification)............................... Sex Difference Item Analysis for Symbol Test II (Response frequencies)........................ Comparison of fiPI N— and E;SCores of Present Sample with LPI Normative Data................ V Page 42 5O 51 \)1 CW TABLES UF APPENDIX Appendix I A. Frequency of Agreement Among Judges for Symbols of Symbol Test I............ ............ ..... B. Preluency of Agreement Anong Judges for Symbols of Symbol Test II............................ Appendix.III A. Subject Age, I4 and Scores on NPI, Symbol Tests I and II....................... ..... ......... vi Page “J \D 96 PnO ELEM Previous research has indicated that, on the whole, peOple are able to differentiate between male and female sexual symbols derived from Freudian dream theory. However, there have also been indications that individual differences exist in this ability to correctly differentiate between sexual symbols. The present study is an attempt to extend the findings of previous studies, first, by inVestigating differential responses to sexual and non-sexual (neutral) symbols, and second, by investigating the possibility that two personality variables correlate with the ability to cor- rectly identify sexual symbols, neuroticism and extraversion- introversion. Consequently, three main questions are ex- plored in this study: 1) Are subjects (Ss) able to identify male and female Freudian sexual symbols from among symbols that are sexually neutral 1’ 2) Is the ability to identify sexual symbols related to the personality dimensions of neuroticism and/or extraversion- introversion? 3) Are the personality dimensions of neuroticism and extra- version-introversion related to 85' preferential responses to symbols having conventionally social sexual meanings as 2 well as by their reSponses to symbols having Freudian sexual meanings? These three broad questions are clarified and made more specific in the sections which follow. bAUKUnUUN D 01“ THEUKY l’alx'D l'LviijSEx-‘LRCH Theoretical Background Lessler (l962b) has compiled an extensive review of the literature on symbolism including the viewpoints of various philOSOphical, behavioristic, and psychoanalytic writers. Within this broad theoretical framework, the pre- sent study draws its impetus mainly from psychoanalytic thought, the main emphasis being placed upon concepts for- mulated by Freud, Fromm, Jung, and Fenichel. The following discussion contains theoretical considerations of symbol functions and symbol types, and also considers two person- ality variables which may be involved in the use of symbols, neuroticism and extraversion-introversion. Symbol Functions There appear to be two main types of psychological functions which symbols perform that are, in a sense, dia- metrically opposed. First, a symbol may perform a facili- tating function with regard to the conscious recall or its referents, and second, as is the case with a Freudian symbol, it may perform an inhibitory disguise function which impedes 4 the conscious recall of its referents. A definition given by Morris (1927) will help explain the first function: A symbol is any given or experienced substitute stim- ulus that leads to a reinstatement of the original stimulus in a form that is observable only from the self-inclusive point of view. Less technically stxted, a symbol is any portion of experience that has become a substitute for and a reminder of some other portion of experience. (p. 284) The key words here are "substitute" and "reminder". The facilitating function is shown by tne fact that the symbol serves as the substitute vehicle by which otuer por— tions of eXperience are actively recalled to consciousness. Probably tue best examples of this function would be Spoken and written language, mathematical symbols and scientific notation. The second type of psycholOgical function of a symbol, the inhibitory function, is espoused mainly by psycho— analytic writers and is reflected in this definition of "symbol" given by English and English (1958): ...an idea in the conscious area of the psyche (i.e., an idea of whicn the person is aware) that takes the place of a mental process in the unconscious. The conscious idea becomes the object of the unconscious idea's instinctual motivation, the individual being unaware of the displacement or substitution. When described as a wish or desire, the symbol includes not only the idea but the instinctual motive that goes with it. In Freudian psychoanalysis, tue instinctual motive is a Lanifestation af libido. The fact that substitution of symbol for reality is nec— essary is ascribed to conflict or re ression; the form taken by the symbol results partly from censorsu' (pp- 533-52) fl f. 5 The key words here are “substitution", "conflict", and "repression”. In this case tne symbol, rather than consciously reminding the person of another portion of experience, serves as a disguise in order to keep undesire— able instinctual impulses from conscious awareness because of anxiety and conflict over their direct, Open expression. Freud (1980) in his Die Traumdeutung of 1900 em- phasized the inhibitory disguise function of dream material which includes symbolic distortions: Everyone has wishes that he would prefer not to dis- close to other people, and wishes that he will not admit even to himself. On the other hand, we are justified in linking the unpleasurable character of... dreams with the fact of "ream—distortion. And we are justified in concluding that these dreams are distorted and the wisn-fulfilment contained in them disguised to the point of being unrecognizable precisely owing to the repugnance felt for the topic of the dream or for the wish derived from it and to an intention to repress them. The listortion in the dream is tuus Shown in fact to be an act of tne censorship....a dream is a (disguised) fulfilment of a (suppressed or repressed) wish. (1960, p. 160) Most of tne psychoanalytic thought about symbolism has evolved from Freud's dream theories. For example, Ernest Jones (1950) draws a parallel between the psycho- dynamics involved in symbol formation and those involved in the formation of neurotic symptoms. It is a vell—established observation of clinical psy— chology that wnen a strong affective tendency is re— pressed it often leads to a compromise—formation - neurotic symptoms being perhaps the best-known example - in wnich both the repressed and the repressing tend— encies are fusel, the result being a substitution- 6 product. From tuis it is a Jory slibnt step to infer that symbols are also of tAiS nature, for it is known that they, like other compromise-formations, are com- posed of both conscious and unconscious elements.... That symbolism arises as the result of intrapsychical conflict between the repressing tendencies and the repressed is the View accepted by all psycho-analysts. (p- 115) Thus, as a compromise formation between impulse eXpression and inhibition, a symbol is a neurotic-like mani— festation where tne latent underlying meaning is excluded from conscious awareness. In sum regarding symbol functions, symbols may perform u facilitating function in aiding active recall of other portions of experience or an inhibitory function by helping to keep the recognition of unacceptable impulses from conscious awareness. In psychoanalytic thinking, dream symbolism (vhich includes sexual symbolism) exemplifies the inhibitory function. It is a neurotic-like manifestation because, like the neurotic symptom, it represents a dis- guised compromise-formation between impulse eXpression and inhibition. Symbol Types In aidition to differing symbol functions, there are also different symbol types. Fromm (1951) distinguishes betneen three types of symbols, Conventional, Accidental, and Universal. 7 Conventional symbols consist of SUCJ thin worls, certain emblems, and pictures the use of which is a matter of societal or cultural eonveution taught to members of the society or culture from birth. With such symbols there is no intrinsic relationship between the symbols them- selves and their referents, but rather, the link between the symbols and their referents is a matter of repeated associ— ation instilled by the demands of the particular society or culture. 0n the whole, conventional symbols seem to perform a facilitating function as discussed in the previous section. Accidental symbols are personal sy1bols which have meaning to the individual person depending upon his own unique experiences. Thus in the example that Fromm gives, the name of a city may symbolize a mood, happy or sad, de- pending upon the given person's previous experiences in that city. The association here is accidental, and again as with the universal symbol there is no intrinsic relationship between the symbol and its referent. The third symbol type that Fromm d cribes is (D m the "Universal" symbol. The universal synocl is the only one in which the relationship between the symbol and that which is sym— bolized is not coincidental out intrinsic. It is rooted in the experience of the affinity between an emotion or thought, on the one hand, and a sensory experience, on the other. It can be called universal because it is shared by all men, in contrast not only to the accidental symbol, which is by its very nature entirely personal, but also to the conventional symbol, 8 which is restricted to a group of people sharinfi tie . — - \ sane convention. (Fromm, 1991, pp. l7-lo) Fronm's two criteria of a "Universal" symbol are that it is shared by all men and that it has an intrinsic relationship with its referent. From a theoretical stand- point, Freudian sexual symbols would meet these criteria. Regarding the universal occurrence of sexual sym- bolism, including that found in dreams, Freud wrote: ...How do we profess to arrive ‘lt the meaning of these dream-symbols, about which the dreamer himself can give us little or no information. My answer is that we derive our knowledge from widely different sources: from fairy tales and myths, jokes and witticisms, from folklore, i.e. from what we know of the manners and customs, sayings and songs, of different peeples, and from poetic and colloquial usage of language. Everywhere in these various fields the same symbolism occurs, and in many of them we can under- stand it without being taught anything about it. If we consider these various sources individually, we shall find so many parallels to dream-symbolism that we are bound to be convinced of the correctness of our interpretations. (Freud, 1957, p. loo) Thus Freud infers the universality of sexual sym- bolism fron the fact that it is forni in similar form in the myths, customs and folklore of different peeples. Regarding the intrinsic relationships between sexual symbols and their referents, Freud gives many examples including symbolic representation of the male and female genitalia. All elongated obgects, such as sticks, tree-trunks... may stand for the male organ - as well as all lon5, sharp weapons, such as knives, da55ers and pikes.... ~Boxes, cases, chests, cupooards and ovens represent the uterus, and also hollow objects, ships, and vessels of all kinds. (Freud, 1900, p. 554) And elsewhere (Freud, 1957): ...the penis, is symbolized primarily b" objects NJiCh resemole it in form, bein5 10:5 and upstanding, such as sticks, umbrellas, poles, trees aid the like;... firearms are similarly su ed: guns, pistols and re- volvers, these last bein5 a very apcrOpriate symbol on account of their shape. (pp. 161— 62) The female 5%nitalia are symbolically represented by all such objects as skare with them the property of enclosin5 a space or are capable of acting as recep— tacles: such as pits, hollows and caves, and also jars and bottles, and boxes of all sorts and sizes, chests, coffers, pockets, and so forth. Ships too cone into this category. Many symbols refer rather to the uterus than to other 5enital or5ans: thus cupboard, stoves and, above all, rooms. The breasts must be include amon5st the or5ans of sex, the se, as well as the lar5er hemispheres of the female oody, are represented by apples, ‘eaches and fruit in general. (p. 165) In the: :e exampl e.- the rain intrinsic relationship between the synbols and their re ferent.s seems to be the cormon preperty of shape. In Sim rcgardin5 symbol types, Fromm classi Hie symbols into three types, Conventional, Accidental and Uni- versal. Conventional symbols are social or cultural in nature and seem to perform a facilitatin5 function in the active recall of tueir referents. Accidental symbols are idiosyncratic anJ depend upon the individual person's unigue experience. Universal synools are tieoretically comron to all men. Freudian sexual symbolism can be subsumed under the "Universal" caTe 5ory by the criteria of universality and intrinsic relationship to its referents, and as was pointed out in the previous section c»n symbol fm notions , it orms an inhibitory function vVith re5 Trd to conscious recall by keepin5 its referents, i.e. unacceptable impulses, from conscious awareness. Neuroticism and Extraversion-Introversion In the previous discussion the focus was on sym- bols and symbolism per se. At this point attention will be turned toward two pOSSl ible personality variables involved in the use of symbols, Heuroticism and ixtraversion-lntro- version. Neuroticisn Accordin5 JO Feni chel (1945): ...we have in psychoneuroses, first a defense of the e50 a5ainst an instinct, then a conflict between the insit.ct strivin5 for discharges nd the defensive forces of the e50, then a state of dammin5 up, and finally the neurotic symptoms which are distorted dis— char5es as a consequence of the state 0 dampin5 up - a compron.ise between the Opposin5 forces. The symptom is the only step in this development tlit bec=nes~ manifest; the conflict, its history, and the si5nifi- cance of the symptoms are unconscious. (p. 23) As a result of the ”dammed up state" of instinctual libidinil impulses, ordinary normal excitations becoze ll traumatic for tue iniividual (Fenichel, 1945, 2- 19). They 1‘ are a threat to the ego's deiensive str uctire becziuse tie» mi ht upset the orecarious balance between impulse and Ch defense and result in a discharge of tne forbidlen impulses. m ‘, in iue stion arises as to the nature of these for- bidlen inpilses in tie neurotic person and tieir effect upon his behavior. Fenichel (1945) gives an answer derived from Freudian 1908) th inkino: Keurotics sufler under the persistence of their Oedigus comolex. The fact that this oersistence nec- essarily disturbs object relationships of the moment by arousing misjui"nents, dissatisfaction, ani consequent lis apyointment b3 ninifests itself, first of all, in the characteristics of love lif . Because f tne fact that "the behavior of a nunan being in sexual natterr: is ofter a orototjae for tue Nnole of his otiier no les of lee ution to life” , the manifestations of an uniuly ye“"isteit Oedipus Complex are not limited to love life groger out are encountered in all types of social relations. (Fenichel, 1945, 9- 515) T‘lJS, the thrextening iLoul4es in t:.3 neurotic person are sexual in nature deriving from an unresolved Oedipus co piex. he results in behavior are listcrtions in tie sexual liie anl possible ¢enerulization of distorted behavior to otier areas of functioning. However, these distortions are not necessarilj limited solelj to the behav- ior of neurotics for, as Fenichel (194)) points Olt: ...Ne have evidence to inlicite that the statement "a neurotic person his rot ainei his Oeuipus comylex, an1e*mnas GlIJQIT‘ll .«2rstul hixEIlUt'(3V9115lhliliifixfs nuit- .s. ters....the norLal adult, too, still nus nis oediyis 12 I complex, but there is i luantitative difference between the normal «nd tne neurotic individual. (-. loo From this, one mignt expect Some continuity of neurotic behavioral distortions between the neurotic person and toe normal person depending upon the degree to which the Oedipus complex remains active. Perhaps the best psychoanalytic statement of a continuity of neurotic behavior betneen normals and neurotics f‘." \ .. x I ’ N, If) is given in Freud's PSXCHQPRtUUlogj of Everyday Li e (l Here, Freud points out that the motivations beiind such normal occurrences is the forgettina of names, flips or the tongue, mistakes in writing ani errors of moveLent are the same as the motivations oehind dream distortions ("The Dream Work") and tne foriation of neurotic symptoms: The incongruities, absurdities, and errors in the dream Content by virtue of uric; tnv dream is scarcely recog- nized as a psndic aCuievenent originate in the sane way - to be sure, througi freer usage of tne existing material - as the ccmn n error 4f our everyday life;... Tue correct understanding of this trange psycaic work which allows the faulty actions to originate like the dream pictures will only be possible after we have discovered that the psychoneurotic symptoms, particu- larly the psycnic formations of hysteria ani compulsion neurosis, repeat in their Lechanisms all the ssential features of this mode of Operation.... There is still another special interest for us in considering the faulty, chance, and symptomatic actions in the light of this last analogy. If we compare_them to the function of the psychoneuroses and the neurotic symptoms, two frequently recurring statements gain in sense and support - namely, that the borderline be— tween tne nervous, normal, and abnormal states is indistinct, and that we are all slightly nervous.... 15 But the comron charicter of the nildest as well as the severest cases, to which the faulty and chance actions contribute, lies in the ability to refer the phenomena to unwelcome, repressed, psychic material, which, though pushed awav from conscio;sness, is never— theless not robbed of all ca pacity to express itself. (Freud, 1956, pp. loo-65) Thus dream listortions (which include symbols), neurotic swzntoms and the os*chooatholomv which occurs in u H , I A On! the everylay life of normal persons all share the comnonality 1 of the repre ess ion of unde Hire ole impulses and the nanifes- tation of the repressed miteri al in disguised form. Part of the commonality of regressed material of norhals and neu- rotics is, as has been ireviou=l y pointed out, the Oedipus complex and the sexual impulses deriving from it. Distor- tions in behavior would be a function of the success of the repression, i.e. the less successful the repression, the greater would be the resulting defensive behavioral distor- tions, including distortion in the use of sexual symbols. Or, to express the situation in terms of the personality variable of neuroticism, the more neurotic an individual is, tne more distortions would be ex>e -v . inis, i iiCEd Alta Linini a Jrefereit‘il cdoioe oetdeen a n '5 . .‘, ”or”. a . ‘ ,fi,‘ . .' Conventional" soCial SJMoul und a ”Universal” Frediian 16 symbol, the extravert would tend to choose (prefmr) the former while the introvert vould tend to choose (prefer) the latter. Theoretica Bunnary and Conclusions In the foregoin5 theoretical discussion the fol- lufilng points were developed: 1) Syrbols can perform two main functions; a facilitating function which aids in the recall of referents (Morris, 1927), 'nd an inhibitory function which impedes referent recognition (Freud, 1960; Jones, 1950; Fenicnel, 194;). Freudian sexual synbolism performs a neurotic-like inhibitory function because, similar to neurotic symptoms, it represents a dis- guised compromise-formation between impulse eXpression and inhibition in which repressed, unacceptable impulses are excluded from conscious awareness. (Freud, 1950; Jones, 1950) 2) According to Fromm (1951), symbols can be classified into three types: Conventional symbols are tiose in which the relationsnip between the symbol and its referent is a matter of learned social uni cultural association. Accidental symbols are idiosyncratic and depend upon a person's own unique experience. Universal symbols are connon to all men and are intrinsically ielntei to their referent" rather tran related merely by association. By inference, Freudian sexual symbolism can be subsumed unier the uniVersal category of symbolisn. (Freud, 1957, I960) 17 5) Bused on tJE writinss of Freud (legs) and Fenichel (1945), a continuum of neurotic behavior (neuroticism) is prOposed extending from the psychOpathology of everyday life in normal persons to actual neurotic symtoms of the neurotic person. Because Freudian sexual symbol forrstion performs tne some functions as neurotic symptoms, the nore neurotic a person is, tie more distortion would likely exist in his reSponse to Freudian sexual synbols due to their impact on his repres- sive defensive stricture. Also, since conventional sexual symbols ire indirectly sSSociated with sexual impulse life, the more neurotic a person is, the more distortion would likely exist in his response to conventional sexual symbolism. 4) Based on tne writings of Jung (1946), a continuum of extraversion and introversion is pr posed. Because of his inwardly directed interests, the more introverted a person is, the more preference he would show for Freudian sexual symbolism since it represents inner, impulse life. On the other hand, the more cxtraverted and outwardly directed a person is, the more preference he would show for conventional social symbolism. Review of hesearc‘ rs.- >,) The present reviex of the research literature is organized to emphasize the relationships between subgect variables and the ability to respond apprOpriately to sexual symbolism (deoending upon the task). Consequently, the VW 54 l U ' coincides with — ‘V 9 number of references to a particular stud the number of subject Varinbles tint it deals with. The studies are divided into two main sroups, those employing dream symbolisn and hypnosis and those in which Qs, in a nornal waking state, are instructed either to sort or to ’- state their preierence for male ind female sexual symbols. Many of the studies in this reviev were included in a previous survey of the research literature by Lessler (1963b). His etphasis was upon the validity and universality of Freudian sexual symbolism, and in general, support was found for both of tie e hypotheses. SubJect Variables and Hypnosis Studies Schroetter's (1951) early hypnosis eXperiments (1911) were concerned with toe translation into dreams of content suggested by the experimenter. The subjects, re- sumably of high intelligence since two were students of philosophy and medicine (Male, are 22; Female, age L0) and one was a pharmaCist (Female, one L4), were w x) Q iren dream sug- gestions while in deep hypnotic sleep. Sometites subgects were instructed to dream imnediately, and at oth r times they were instructed to dream during the night following the suggestion and to trite down tue dreams the next horning. The resultinr c) dreams of both experimental conditions were taken as support for Freud's theoiy of latent content (the 19 suggested content) being trunslated into symbolic form in the dream itself. Schroetter gives no informaiion on how the eXperinentul subjects were selected, but presumably he selected only those who presented positive evidence, i.e. those whose dreams best supported Freudian theory. (napaport, 1951, P- 351) Evidence for tuis presumption cores from Roffenstein (1951) who in 1934 attempted to replicate Schroetter's work with tne general result that: Dattner, Scnilder, and the author [Roffenstein] failed in their attempts to repeat th se hypnotic experiments: the subject either did not dream wt all (in spite of good hypnotic and post-hypnotic suggestibility), or the dream was reproduced tel guel without distortion or change, frankly sexual activities being expressed in unembellished form even when symbolic representation was definitely suggested....1n several cuses resistance was expressed to crudely sexual, and particularly to perverse, dream contents:...This corresponds well with our present knovledge concerning the limits set by personality make-up to hypnotic and post-hypnotic suggestibility. (pp. 251-52) hoffenstein, however, finally found one subject who produced dream symbolism as predicted while in the hyp- notic state. He describes the subject as "a 28 year old totally uneducated nursemaid of sub-average intellifience, who 4' L) rew up and still lifes in an entirely unelucated milieu; ...she is rentally nedlthy..." (p. 252) In another early hypnosis study, Nachmansonn (1951) in 1925 reported dreum experinents carried out with one 24 20 year old ferwle with orgxnic brain disease, and two femwle subjects under hypnotic treatment for psychological disorders. Of the latter subjects, one, aged 45, displayed "affect— lability", and the other, used 36, at tines displayed "in- tense and uncontrolled sffectivitj" (p. 260). The dreams of the first two subjects tended to luck symbolic distortion 0 or disguise unless these pro esses were Specifically sug— gested to Lnem under hjpnosis. The dreses of the third subject were always disguised whether suggestion for indirect representition was given or not. None of the subjects could produce dream-like, indirect representations of the suggested content while they were in the waking state, i.e. they could not consciously symbolize the material. Farber and Fisher (l9u5), in another dream study using hypnosis, report that only 5 subjects (20% of a total sumole) were able to translate dreams nhile they were in the hypnotic stnte. "The explanation for the failure of the remainder of tne jroup is not clear. It can be said, how— ever, thnt these individuals were juite inhibited and rigid comgared to the translators." (p. 208) The authors suggest that "The reasons for both the ability and inability to translate lreuns will be elicited only through careful per- sonality studies of the individual subjects." (n. 208) Although these early studies were pcorly control- led, they give tne following very tentative suggestions 21 regarding hypnosis, subject variables, and synbolism: 1) There are large individual differences in symbolizing activity while under hypnosis. Some peOple dream in symbolic form suite readily while others dream the suggested content in completely undisguised form. Still others refuse to dream tne material at all because of its frank sexual content. Also, some gersons are much more able than others to reverse the yrocess and translate dream symbols into their latent content. 2) Persons of low as well us high intellijence are «ble to produce dream symbolisr while in the hypnotic state. d) Nornal gersons as well as those exhibitin5 psychOpathology are able to proluce dream syrbolism Hnile under hypnOsis. 4) Both males and fenales are able to produce dream symbols wnile in the hypnotic state. 5) Adults of different ages are able to produce dream syn— bols while under hypnosis. Tne above conclusions are nostly a matter of "com- mon sense" expectation since dreamin3 seems to be a niversal gnenouenon. However, it is interesting to note that indi— vidual differences do exist, and as Farber and Fisher (1943) point out, these differences ray be related to personality I variables. to rd Subject Variables and Symbol Sorting and Preference Studies In these studies 88 while in a normal waking state were presented with Freudian and/or cultural symbols and instructed either to indicate which symbols they preferred or to seoarwte the syrbols into male and female categories. Using this general methodology tne relationships between symbolism and the subject variables of age, personality, sex and intelligence have been studied. Age Differences McElroy (1954) had T79 Scottish school children state the r oreferred symbol in each of twelve pairs of sym- bols, each pair consistinj of a rule and female symbol. The hypothesis that 88 would prefer sexual syrbols opposite to tneir own sex J38 generally upneld. With regard to tne age variable, cnildren aged 12 and above showed 5: ater preference for symbols of tie sex Opposite to their own tian children under the age of 12. Jahoda (1956) usel McElroy's method with 858 boys and girls, :5es 11 to 19, from Africa's Gold Coast (Ghana). The overall results were consistent with McElroy's, i.e. the Children on the whole preferred symbols of the sex Opposite to their own. However, in contrast to thlroy's finding of 23 an increase in preference for symbols of the Opposite sex by older children (adolescents), Jahoda found a decrease. He suggested that this difference mifiht have been due to the fact tiet tue older African children were allowed greater freedom of actual overt sexual expression than the Scottish children and therefore had less need for symbolic sexual expression. One night also reaSon that in terms of the re- lationsiip between symbolism and neurotic symptoms previously iscus ed, the African children had less of a "dammel up ‘ state" of sexual impulses than the Scottish children and thus had less need for disgiisel symbolic seXJal expression. In this country Levy (1954) snoyed that a group of 62 fifth grade public school children rere not able to suc— cessfully mated a series of ten male and ferale first names with a series of ten male and female Freudian symbols above cnance expectancy. Jones (1950) suagested that part of the reason for Levy's inability to find support for the Freudian hypothesis was the fact that he used prepubescent children. Jones presented the Levy fi,ures to a group of 20 psychology students, mean age 22.0, and a group cf 20 psychiatric patients, mean age 27.4. Both of these adult groups identi- fied the male 1nd female syrbols according to the Freudian 1*potnesis significantly above chance expectancy. Thus, the 5'" .\ O {:1 combined results of Levy and Jones suggest as did -lroy (1954) that older 88 are better able to reSponi to Freudian sexual symbols than younger (prepuhescent) ones. .24 S tare: (1955) also founi t11t oller 83 were able to match names a; 1 sexual svmoo ls in the iirection predicted :JJ by Freufl 'an theory. He used a sarple of 112 adult psychotics (64 male, and 48 female, 983 schizophrenics) and a group of 30 student nurses, Stennett and Thurlofl (1958) attenpted to account for the difference between Levy's (1954) uni Starer's (1955) esults. Tney obtainel no difference in netcuing abilitv between a group of 20 ps vch)tic idults and a group of 25 universit1':stufienfs ttum3 ler (196Ta) furtuer eXyloxed ege a in responsv to cultural and Freuiien sexual s**'oliom Forty rwde levels, 4th 3rule, 9th :3r1dw, and.CCngn19 level, ;Knxe reqlired.txl lesignite tau? male an1 female 8(y1b913 in two sets of synoole. One was a Freuli1n 7-.4 f.) ,1 ,7. .2 A '44 .0 k . (J C ta (,1. I1 I k) ('1‘ 0 .,.° ,fl ' - ”'3 ‘1 - .A‘3 ."W' I -v “ series of a0 strlctuieu sywooln s 4““1' . 1 ’V c 4'1\1 v . I” r‘ - . \f‘ - "V ' ’w'v '1 ‘ - so1udqrds, 111 txo otuec W18 e series o1 20 unstrucuirel . y ’ H , f n” '.n - .~‘ ~v-H v» ‘1'" 1r ‘ ~'-- r- \s‘.‘ I ‘ \ . " ‘ SJ’ILbOlr. 1311:. ' C‘. I ‘1 1-..»;15 r71 \_-1:Fr\ < \.J ‘1 l1, 111-131(311111153, -‘ 113.15 .5- J (smooth, feminine) limension. The latter series was asslmed 27 to be of cultural significan s. Tue Freudian symbols were sorted correctly oy all 359 groups significantly above chance expectanc; Jith no a;e broup swoyino greater or Lesser abil- ity at tie task. The ulstructireu cultural synbcls were sorted correctlz by the two older groups but not by the 4th graders. Lessler (1962b, 1964) also found, as did Schonbar and Davitz (IQbO), that introductory psychology students identified srmbols (line drawings) er8 according to cultural expectations than the expectations of Freudian theory. How- ever, where cultural meanings were lacking, the symbols were identified according to Freudian expectations. in COL.";>in~:tion, t31r .-".'*ES§7.;.L‘I_§ "f tie std-lies revie'."ed r , _ O . ~ . ‘,. g A ‘1 r. 1" “ tare. Cf tne seven studies employing Children u: pre-yuoes— ‘ ,~ 1' rv~ . r ‘3‘ v I 3 fi V - . 1‘, 9" 1‘ “T .{j.. (5". -:| . cezlt‘ , (111‘? VJ‘Q‘J‘JJ. 8.11.1-” Ci"D.LeEJC‘3:lt 3' {Jr-“S , LL)U.~ ..ILuLJ. s, 1- ‘3 1 .(311‘ ability to respond to Freul an segual ijmbolisn in acco;dunce HlLfl tneofietical eXgectations - Ncfilroy (l9f4), Jahoda (libd), Jones (19s1>, Lessler (1963a) - and three do not indiCute such an ability - Levy (1054), Acord (1962), Eirker (1337}. A For older 35, o; a total of ten studies reviewed, seven indicate significant ability tu resqond in accordance with . -3 \ -, ,‘Afi-c .‘ , / f,’j- ‘ ‘ .{f‘ 7-,..71fiw. ‘r—y \ Freudian theory - Lpblrpv . 7&4), Jvnbw (chJ), UljglL (A93/, U \ (1) ts: t and Thirlow (1958), Acord (l?b§), Lessl r (1953 (D LHEt b, 1964) - wherees three indicate either no ability or a 28 W A} avitz U4. 5 te11c1r 1iie la) the ilaci.'thal:iiifdflarezd3 synfiiols -|V(.‘. Y- W ‘1. e A studies, Stennett and Thurlow (l\—58) o igositive support for the Freigiian le/ct’l sis u-zin“ Levy and Starer sets of s;ruools on the sane Drouo nur 3s. This irplies tuit as long as different s"motls ire constructed in adi:me1c1itu Freudiaz vexflec cted.1t) 3iV€ Cbflifir‘ble For symbolism, Barker (1957) I that jOifljEI children 1aVe ately whe-ea: Lessler (l9’2a) demonstrated no Sich FL! I‘ 01 ie 1 (1960), to 85, the th1fee studies revie med, Wchonbar Les sler (l962 a and b), unanimously .b\"fi . 4' )L1 3m l.’\ C‘ respond approgriately t cultural syn a e113 Fr eidiin- arnl culirir l. syrdxxlisn1 the same stiuulus, i.e. wiere the sane symbol has Freudiem1£N1i cilturul meanings, 3s to 1e cultural n1e'-~.-:1i11:;s — Br-Lr}:;»:-r (1997), Schun‘oar and “ ‘ a." a 1 .«i" Lessler (i9odb‘. 1),.‘00'. re 3111 t 3 11 e d in 1 .fi’ ‘t‘c‘é “U 11:. .2 .‘L- Ul sets (3 tne ability to r "'oni a indixiute "'\' o 1,L111 L (3‘) ‘ UHVLT7 )nbar 737 u 4.19 student . .‘ UL 7"} $.5— tera, indicates and quitz ability lict in posin h 4 . sgonl to en? (1950\ <6 Personality differences Frinck (1946} had 119 female uni~r5raduate psy- chology students state their preference fer Freudian symbols presented in pairs, a mule and female synool in each pair. ’Tuiss‘:a3 1\)llo Kai by :1 Let=uf Ftwiick £5 own esign. The overall conclusion nus ”that girls prefer- ring hale symbols were more mature, i.e. accepted their role as women and sec m_>tel ran as their counteriart, "hile girls ireferrinr female scmhols were less mature." (n. 11 J. ..J u - The remaining studies compare normal Ss with various psyc1izatric (neurotic and psychotic) groups. Comparing a nornal group of 18 lospital atte ndints and 27 stuient nurses with a 3r01p of 99 hospital patients, Jacous (193e) riai‘them indicate mfiflxfli«of ll} umnrla reminied then of tie male sex or; n awl which reni Lde d a? then of the female sexual organs. The words had been taken from Freud's vritings as being sexual ymb 531;. Rota the normal 1nd patient groups iientifiel the words in co currence with Freiliun ..H H4 C L <; (‘1 I U thinltin° significantly above chance expectancy. 1'4" tie noinils' reSpqnses agreed vitli the ireudixn hyhothesis to x greiter ecteut tuid did the 3 nts' responses. Jicobs .. i-‘ ii 1° 0 ~. ‘. a ‘. - — -~ “.1 S -15) Duct; 1). ttlnl’ +3-6. l Lfl. t: rence U11_J..lt 1.1 VC! .)€'3l 148 to lift/€1- 4: ll ‘03 Ft ’\ b—d v lectual is: irnent or lack of social motiJation an 0 J... b .1 \J—3 ,~ « O. )0 143;. Glitz“). 30 kales (l‘VXJ), lweviously fktgcisewxl.in ccunzectigni witdl age liiiVnwmu3es, alih).fblfll ttun:_patierts; (nostlj'sufiiizc- gdrenics) and normals (college StJdGHtS) Jere able to iientifJ sexaal synbcls in accordance with Freudian t1eorr, an? that the patients were poorer :t the task. He conclad d, "It 3J3€3r3 that severe imgairmert of J€rHQLmlltf “s accouninied L 0571.1 g1}. L2)K).I .;_>J~’13.J.3.€1tl\)rl \)f "If“;Db 1C yl‘QCeSS‘ch. (L3. liq) 7‘ ‘ r‘ 3. A[‘ C- ‘ a r‘ (1 ‘ ‘V ‘ ‘ ‘ fi 5. v " . " ‘ ' ‘3 ’r‘ AJt‘lfilfiL‘; <13)1)) , tilt-‘v \-.L§‘Cl.l\ ;C;. .ZI‘L)EVl\-".ASlU" , ..C‘ 1}1‘:. . ~ . '1 v ‘ ~ ~ . ‘ ‘ ‘I V ‘5 ‘ "V " “ 0 Q '1 ‘ x .V .’ “‘- ' ‘ ~ ~ I '2 'w Slzllgl‘!fixwlltb wi A1111s JPOJEH~kLL d‘ult giavcnoti p u r‘- ‘ " (1" 1" V “.‘. ‘, ~~r .. -. . I ' ”I ' ance o1 3 brcup o1 dddlt 081C oti cs Ab CCLfldlud 51tn a nainll groui of university stalents. Both groups siccessfullv Flo Hatched I1.113~3s_-.’-m:l symbols. si-rnif‘ O cymrtly above c ru1c e expec- J. 'l U ADC} o Clii (1961) cornered l? neurotic oitcntients neurotic inp:t ent n in; 40 schi7o hrc nic in 'tj-nts on a cask erployiné symbols which Vir ed fro: pictures to word lescriptions and also varied clan; i dirensinn of jiiged 'T F" s xna significance. desalts SilQnEd t at the aciizoghrenics respcniel more to the unzerlyina sexual sivwificnrce c“ tse symtcls thin Either of tne neirotic ”rou In a study encloyind 5ro1ps of n rmals, neurctics ' 1,4 "\"’ I") '9 (IN C b ‘ ‘\ “+C-v '43-’7“ “r ‘72» 1'“) I‘m in“ r,slu‘nfiics in .10 grout), eqiaucd io1 1itcliiéenc-, Moos anl Nissen (19903 founi cc lifferenres in (5 'J0 H F‘. (.‘. / ‘1 (+- O 1 v~~ £111" identify male the authors” own Benign plus McElr y 8 (195+) stud “(a x) O (195%) stufiy used. The 181'“ 1, inte lli“ence Nas accountei f correctly identify Freudian 113 35 Ln Tile ELSG ’3 for personality differences (1954), Jones (1953), 1' l ” "1 d miflifed. zuni .38, 11o Sp Nitn non q C. ‘1 .3 ,‘ ‘ , ' .- ‘ 1c , SnONen a luficit 1 printel; to Fweidian SGXJHl and Prescott (l9fl37 , 'klld \i‘. LiSSBIl (1?:3 (j) , foindzuic: r" .( L'ull AS)Q7 H) .r.. , r' \ 1 Noos and en (1959; o~:11 \ .4. A but 0 Fl. nornals or psgcnot cs, 14) De nmwfie EPSFAXISLVQ tx)5=ex 42‘ .4 will 1. Franck (1946) fOIn symbols Mere more mature x. Winter and P W,‘ _‘l\ ‘ l o '1 - ~ ' .1 oJetIVIVZI‘TJH dt’l—Llilj' 1.4') ' IG' '1: .., . :‘L—b‘i I «LT‘CalT‘513 o r y. :I In and Starer (1935 I]. Stennett don defici college t {14131 yescott (1937? 3t011 hols Tne syn. :e froL Levy's ”(my ’1 '11:?) authors concludei tfiat or, diff sexual San ls disappea 1‘1 113318, gives a Hixed gictu e. \ ' y\_-:‘: o 914- f) s£31 ~ '_ )it 1 p'th”? fdxilit3"to IMJSQIHI YL'Jlemo Conversely, and TndrloN ( 0 ~ I‘) 1’10 11’]. 01117.. lin ( foun? .. ‘,.11' .1, 111 synnooii t1dn Slfi *2) women W10 er err -‘- ' n ‘ ‘ ,‘ ~\' '0 ‘ - 0 111.1110. an.) 1,139.1.e1‘red .0 1oun1 no (15311103 ”1.”: Here S'u from tne combination and SC LliZO 1, .'13- e 1 CI II.) (1994) W 119 I1 erences in ability to “and J \t O \‘p IA J30 cos W 1’ l '3 .ViI;\. 6r U100 S :r;so1 to 1 -|-°.. . l‘hlI‘Oul 1,3. fmbols of COI‘IK‘?“ ' \ ff 1:; ‘1 U Jacobs' results €11le \J ‘\ :4 I.‘ 1“ r ' 7 ‘ lex leleneuces In tne stlijes prCVicuslI rsviewel, the following : o ‘ ‘ . ‘0 ‘ ' v- _‘ .\,“ r 'y n I . . ‘ f ‘ j I ’ . . lnloxmatl.q1 bib rerortei CHJCtIKJJL.‘ ax lll orences 1n response to sexaal symbols. Jones (1956) found that in {he combinad nocual stuient anw )sychiatric gatient u A. yroaps, males vere better J able?1x3 identifprsxnnbols (MfPPeCtly THEM; femnlos. .Iowever, I -. ..A .. '61." 1 \‘* 'lel all-l ~1:i.l.- v '2.lx.)l€:5C€.-'xo.5 H ' *: ~—,1— .-‘Jrafl ,»,"1, n n_s stuoy Jluu ullll .1 f‘» a " »' "I " ’ ' . “ ‘ 7 . -\ . 1 f‘ 7‘ Q ljfiDLI, L“) cr.l ll.i€?3€fl(tfijri§rfl?#FEUu \ Sczmnbar and WLvitz (lGOO) fodni no 23x differences FJ. :ndllb CUllan Stdfis%flfia.fl1 tlelr abll tirin).l1~1 lV Cullul&1 ; > \I‘ . VQ\ \ L' v vi. J sexual symbols ant in tueir rallti»e lwck of noilif; to ‘ Acorl (1952) foanl go ssx differences at any a' level (grades ?, 6, C, 13, or mlult edasatlon class) is .‘ V. n .' q " ~ ‘ -. ,- 1-5 “ .‘ .‘ , , .‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ .'.. q . .' -'. Y - (as_LL5Ll11» ;V1ut 5 ol ‘tn;~ s‘ULQ shsx (tr TJLB Sphflbftm: «#1 C , ”91%? T ‘N 1- .‘M -‘ I. ‘ y‘ r . (.'fl I- ‘ .' . '\ N ' ." "fi “stlsr (19o31) IauLxl h; ssx illleleuces quh; wtl, +':’ l‘ \ 1 v I' ‘ 'fi" [1 \. : - 1- ' (1. “4 "“ "\-‘ ‘ . ‘ Quil, till A C'Dllt‘Jp . 771163 L)L‘~A‘jelit9 Jr]. ‘L-l'i «up: LtILj ipilLlC)Il Raf +< .'.”; ,‘H. r ..,, “ l 1‘? a, ..w ‘ ,.-,., . .. - « J.-.n- , StrdCbl..':a_l ub’ALl {I Luv: .)(, :3, “Wit lf‘fJVALrZE» 1:1 PH: Ll 1' lg12(:7)._,11_1_!?\1 U w more of tdw unstrlctluel tGKtJVQ (Social) sgubols this 311 W 1:11]. t,“ f‘ o 54 As part of a larger study, Lessler (1962 b, 1964) had 165 male and female general psychology students sort social and "psychological" sexual symbols as being like - or not like - themselves. The social symbols were sorted in the expected direction, i.e. males sorted male symbols as like- self and females sorted female symbols as like-self. However, both males and females sorted the female "psychological" sym- bols as like-self. Lessler suggests that this latter finding might be due to the passive, feminine-type psychological role which male students are required to assume in relation to college authorities. To summarize the findings on sex differences in response to sexual symbols, Jones (1961), Schonbar and Davitz (1960), Acord (1962), and Lessler (1962 a) found no sex dif- ferences in response to Freudian symbols, whereas Jones (1956) found males better able to identify symbols correctly than females. Lessler (1962a) found females more correctly responsive to texture (social) symbols than males, but in his other study (1962 b, 1964), no unpredicted sex differ- ences appeared in reSponse to another set of social symbols. However, male college students sorted female "psychological” symbols as being like-self. On the whole, the evidence suggests that in response to Freudian sexual symbols, sex differences do not appear. The evidence for social symbols is equivocal. \ \jl Dii-er~1c hue pgfll :1telli,gnce —---—-~M '\ 7 I ‘ i 'V " ‘ r' ' , f , . 1 »v v: 1 yr. 3 r . «'- ’. . “ , \nrln gnu rianfl], yTeVllunai» ie.iai.bei CCLhmlCQFS U intelligence and its relatiaurlip to fesoonse ta sexual 23m- L bols. Part of Olin’s (1961) res 198 with male neirotics and ac i.\N);Lenics sfiuwmnlei .si hlfl‘"‘13_poo‘”'W€ ccnep:lation w. 6,,- - - .’ ‘f the ivy-RIF; 1J9]ib‘-'11 (, E (H \. f4 H Q; L2 ;.‘ (1’ r“ }J O - '4’: C .4 ..J “ Ml r—l bet.v.en Correct IQ. (SLCPl' fC’T‘Iv'J). Summary and Conclisions from Previous Reeezxrcb V' ‘ . ‘l‘ ,v - V . . . ,s ‘ ~_ J i A *‘,“ . -: o . .. I ~. ~' 0" Prod! tie .3‘9J1\LM7 rzuwyircn, «by; lullxiuin_,~eaieficl 4 v - v- 4— I‘ u 1\ ‘v~ I ' I " ' “I, ‘a ‘- "a v- . '4 " W‘- ‘ 1 - -‘ 1- . .‘ SvLafJQILUerlw-S C All we 1111163 1?) j.r.l_L' . OADU'f'ICv ‘f‘ilfilqlDLC‘h .x- l). 1 O r'vr‘ :: ' 0 Symfiullih. l T1‘r ~. 1' WW 4 f . l ‘r' \\f I ' “ ‘fi':' ~.‘ . J“ 1‘- “ ‘3'?( "o (1 CV .\ 'fiJ‘ L‘ , j J a; silllrl n~Jnu Lo s.uilen 41V: Jil~lek odi~o iul one s . 4 1.- \. VA» . -V ‘1._ ‘ . .‘ - v r‘ J Vi‘ . V" 4.‘ . f v - v~ -, v ‘. W. 9 -‘ —-r~ .' .2, ‘. qJ- . ., A“: 1.11 ull 51‘) )6 b-4991 3 . “3311C! Lab ..ll'C‘ u. 520d :ml 1. JI‘DAtl ml , ‘Dvu'u 11. . -\ +‘x v ~ 1" “‘y "‘ ‘ . J . 1:0v : VI' r' . I. ‘ ,\ f“ |‘ :AL ailitlon ,any have aaown tail in:ividui differences «mist in SVHbUllZfitlJH actiVity. 3) 70? th: 4&9 varfimaol , result; filth chillren «We euiivocel .. ,3 _ .7, ,, or, .. .v . ., ., ‘. A: ,, -: - ,. ,,. H... A, ,.,. .., - -;1'.1 l leldltfa i‘éb‘.) :11 t'.) S'ffl'ull S‘a’lz’..)Ql_lf‘uI[ ..LI'. '1 Ingrid??? COALF-l'fill. with Fred; ian tleory. However, when conventional social in t”w* sanfiesatimulgu::1fnbclsz,;wdultx 1 zit psychot .. ,r\ 1 \-U& in ability to corre 'tetween eVide C? l: e JJJ- : w,.. 1 .:,°. ics SAUL . -eficit sex-Lil symbols whereas other st .‘.-"lies have found no each leficit. One study fou.d no deficit on one part of neurotics as co.::ptres:1 with 103?; normals and p.-3L.'c"aoti<_'s, 1.“? av :rther found pS'ChuthB more responsive ,3 saxzai my bolic meanings than neurotics. No stulies TGF. “ounv relating symbolism 4..- " J to the personali variable of ext?aversicn-introversion. [1Y1 U'lhlasjjn 11:) TEAJZ‘FJ Previous stulies have generally demonstrated that 35 are able to distinguish between male and female sexual symbols derived from the Freudian hypothesis that elongated, upstandin, or szarp objects may s Ibolize t:1e male genitalia and hollow, enclosing c: roundel oogectu 1a] s'rbolize the female genitalia. However, additional sup ort for tue Freudian hypothesis would be obtained if 33 could listinsuisn Freudian sexual s nbols from svmools which are sexually neutral. Consequently Hypothesis I represents an extension from t11e work of previous studies: Hypothesis 1: Subjects Mill be able to identify male ind female Freudian sexual SjlbOlS as m+sculine and feminine respectiVely Wilen these symools are presented arong sexually neutril symbols. The research relai' 111;; personality vuqur-ibles ind ubilitv to correctly ileiti‘ U y Freudian sexual symbols has produced conflicting results. However, from a theo eticul standpoint, cert-11:1 predictiuns can be 23:“: 1e. Psychoanalytic .’1 theory su Jests firs t, that there is 1 continuum of in ”(r asi:1* neuro;ic functioning flCM11MImfidl.\IMF%JiS to neurotic pitients, and second, that symbol fornati n is inluced 1y the same oroceases whicg i1 Litu e neuro‘oic S'mptom i.e. csnflict 3: 58 -,'2..._. ,, .‘-,“ .'....fi.‘ (".‘. ,1. . .3 OVei .linmed In) SGKdJ- lLiALL: S. 14L“ , i.e noie 1nuiiotic H a person is, t1e Lore inaccirate snould be his response to sexual symbolism becaise such symbolism wail: tend to evoke the anxiety associated Jith neurotic conf ict. If placed in a forced-choice symbol identification situation where tne CUUiCB is between sexual symbols, which represent neurotic conflict, anl neutral symbols whicn are free of conflict implications, tne more neurotic person should teii to avoid the sexual symbols ani choose tne neutral symbols. Conse— T a. is as follows: r4 ouently Hyoothesis A D Hypothesis II: There will be a negative relationship between neuroticism and the ability to correctly identify male and female Freudian sexual symbols from among sexially neutral symbols. nnotier personality variable which was diseassel H as possibly 34in; rel ted to iue ability to correctly iden~ . v i , .1'. ‘ ‘ ‘r‘. Y" . .'-. ‘_ ,—- __- .‘ ‘ 1““ T“! .— tify Fieiiian se.ial svnbol o tJt Continuum oi extra- *1 (f‘ H 3 ..J version-Introversion. No researcn was found relating this 1 O -\ ‘. ‘ V r H 1 r . < -\ 'Lilbkt4ouho 11w (JJlAEHt variable to symbolism but certain in 'f " ‘7‘, " . ‘ . . 3" . ' l ' ’1 ' .7 4 '/1 ’ .xfi, V w!» .3 fgdh JJLS s tieoiy. If, in fact, toe introvert fldib no-e ”compensation in an -nconscious, archwic life with regard to instinct and sensation” (Jung, 1946, p. 187) than the extrorert, it :vguld :ze expected tsmt tiie introvert might show more ability to correctly identify Freudian sexual symbols than the extravert since these symbols are very closely associated wit: instinctual inpulses. Thus duty ~' :1: '1»; “ A '.,.~ .,- ' “7' . 2‘ ”,va '2 . . .3 -' -: ,-. '. ht): Qt .lC-‘SIS J.-I: Tilt. Ft: \‘V- .'-]. of: 3 443$; t ‘.V€' 1'19; 11. ell-.15) Lili.’ between introversjon and the ability t3 cpthCtlj identify W Freudian sexual symbols from ameng sexually neutral swubols. The ccwnv rs e will be true fer extravergian. Thus far the hypo neses have been concernel exclu- sively with tie identification of ‘reudian sexual symbolism. ‘Howevec, ttxumezame three siditdxvril hypotheses-.'Wlflczi ierive from a ccnsileratiun of Jifferential preference for mutually exclusaive "Conventi onql" sexual syubols, "Universal" h. ,.-,,12'. q ,4. .H. A: ,J,‘ .. c . .'1 H 1-,”. .‘.”. ...s» “.A~ rreuu-dn sexuil 0 Louis an} neutrll s muuls. Fruu 1&4“ nus 3 d - . v<‘ r‘V ‘1 1‘ 'V v “ll - ‘L‘ ,, r - w ~ , o "‘r‘fl \ ‘ < .- -' 4- been Svild iJCL‘Vlkwihlb‘.’ CiJUcAt Lulrf nciture 0;. til“: 9’: Ionl'ilib‘v variables 01 excr1veveion-introverslcn e511 neuroticism, it night he expected taut the relafive r extvaverted person would show a preference for conventional sexual symbgls (as Opposed to Freudian uni neutral symbols), the introverted person woull prefer impulse representative Freuiiun sexual svmuols (as opposed to conventional and neutral symbols), P4 and the neurotic fierson would prefer cunflict-free neutr: Hubcls (as Opios d to convetltionnl end Freudi%n sexua 1 symbols). A basic assumgtion implied in this grelicticn is that tL1e more normal a person is, t-Ihetue; extrtxverted or introve-i ei, tne more he will prefe r sexual symbels as Op JU ei to non-sexual, neut 1‘ l syn'lbols. This is because ue has HCJIGVCd, in Fr (1) . ‘2 ‘ r: q;. R .-1 "H=’\ : a w . '. 'I I’ ‘: uxiian terLlIA22..2, genitd1.1inLuzc7', (I If} . ' - -‘ v‘ ,.1 .\" a L . 4-“ --\ ~ \-- «ta ‘- ~‘ . ‘ ‘ .1.e. ‘tne :u1u01vunlatilai ul 4nre-bexa it selwi;1 IALICtlkwlb 40 "under the primacy of the genital zone" (Freud, 1997, pp. 536-37). The extravert will express his preference for sexual symbolism by choosing conventional sexual symbols, whereas the intrcvert will do so by CIQOSing Freudian sexual symbols. The neurotic, not hiving attained genital priiac"? because of failure to Successfully resolve the Oediyus comtlex, will tend to shun bcth convention,l wni Freudian sexual symbolism by cnoosir' ts JiS refer ce non-sexual, neutral symbols. In oitknr te QSSulEffdl equal cflnuice oi‘swal astion, tine three type s of ijb.il;3, ccnventional, Freuliun ind neutral, mist oe clustei for :cstncti", utilitarian, and eConcnic valle. Fron these consideritions the follox_né thiee otheses can be evolved: Expothesis IV: If askel to indicate a pre of three typeeo of sex u';+l synbols, conventiunul, Freudian or neutrs , 3s wuo are relwtivelg extraverted will tend to ch)ose the boqxehulUqu s;rL:bols. Hypothesis V: If e wk 1 to in; ic= te a preference for one of three trees of sexuul symbols, conventional, Fieuliun or neutral, 33 who are relatively introverted will tend to F CJJUSG the reuli n symbols. Hypotneeis VI: If as med to indicate a p I>~< ‘eiercn(~ for one or three types of sexual syeuolv, corventienel, Freudian or -~r1' C‘ V v‘ I. ‘ n 1 :2 . "- ‘ - ‘ . ‘v. .‘ ' ‘ ‘ ~ II‘ '~ v m neutiul, as AHV die ltlntlveld neurotic will tend tu cheese the neutral ejmbols. METHU D Samole and gopulation The Gs used in this study Mere 185 single, under- graduate college students (98 males, 90 females) from an introductory psycholody CQJFSE. They were assumed to be naive with regard tc a formal knowledge of symbolism since the data for this study were collected during the first week of the school term (Spring 1954) before they had been given any lectures related to the subject of symbolism. They were also assumed to be in compar ble states of wakefulness and con- scious awareness since all data were collected luring the hours of ’z00 A.M. to 10:00 A.£. Data on age old Id are given in Table l, p. 42. There were no significant sex differences in mean 159 or I%. It is assumed that the results of teis stuly can be generalized to u student population of sex, age and intel- . ' > N l‘ - r\ 2 " . " : ‘. :u w 1‘ ‘ ‘V ‘ ' "W ‘ ' r 1‘ ‘N vv': \ ’\ llififllCe (fli:r—ctmn?isiuxn: sin .Lwr tLPlul.SO cu ‘the ixa.nnt l.ni,l . J- h Four instrunents were used in this stuiv; two symbol tests of the eiperinenter's own design and, for the uterisureLent 41 42 l TABrw 1 Simple Age sii Fstimstei I; ‘ a .“ "- ' ‘ (‘4' . d,‘ . T. o C.” "I, .. GuarJCbCrloblC uqbq cts Mean .w binge [\D \II “J I I» 4: F.) Age Mules (n=98) 19.05 1 Females (n=€0) 18.80 1. Total (Nzlbd) 18.94 1 H FJ O FJFA \] l u r —— ‘ T‘ Males 121.02 9.96 95 - 148 'L‘fl Females 120.50 10.80 95 - '54 TQtKl 120072 10055 95 - 154 l Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale Full Scale 1%8 proruted from Inforustion subtest. of neuroticisr and extrever:ion-introversion, Eysenck’s Maudsley Personality Inventory (Jensen, 1920). The Inform1~ tion subtest of the mechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (Wechsler, 1955) was used to obtain an estimate of intelligenCe. Symbol Test I: (See Appendix II, pp. 83-86) \ This test was used in the inVestigution J1 Hypothe— «:30 I tva-Ifi 1T1 5 .a °s .wx”(? 1 ,;~ ‘\~t e + .-1. ru—gl hes alodbfi l. uni lo Conouoe oi ate I‘CH.INI 6, lend e ani neuir 1 symbols derived from the Freudiqn hypothesis of sexual symbolism. They were selected by the ugreenent of at (J: least three out of four clinical judgv (See Table A, Appen- dix I). The Judges were presefited with a pool of eighty abstract syn'cls of tie eXQeriLenter's own design and asked 47., I ‘ I ‘ . ‘ .0 /\ .' r ‘5‘ v’ . I. o W o f ’ “") o A "\ ‘ r - ' I to lnulC1t9 .llci net tie cr1t~r11 of Dieuiiin $8-111 syn- bolism and which were snxusllj neutral by those cri ter: . The resultin5 instrurent contains twelve i,ens, each item consistin, of on: sexual SJID”1 and two n utral symbols. Placencnt of symbols within itens was uccomglisned in tno stebs. First, sgmsols were assigned to items by use of a twble of rindom numbers with the stipulation that no more than one seiual symbol could appear in any one it emu Seccuul, the Jmesultirrg synfixgl q:w*uigemeni: res tflwni reurqvuiged where necessary to acnleve an even iisversion of sgnbol chirncterihtics throughout tho iifferent items in an effort to reduce possible Respons. bins. For example, some of the neutral symbols consist of iot patterns and were arranged so that no sin5le i1em contained more than one of this tyne of s jmb ool. The genersl instructions for Svmool Test I were: For seen of the follomin5 items, cneck 6/) only one les i5n, uni please 5uess if necess 3r] For items containing male symbols t.e instructions were: 1 ce 3 Checkmark (V? on the lir ne ii rectly belo~ the design Which you think could be d HECP1H381 as the o t masculine. Instructions for items containing female symbols merely substituted the worls nest Ceninine for tne words most nas- Cdlllle. (The snarl 'hwosffl' was; is mi in tflve irnvtruciVLJYLS 111 in attenpt to grecluie response to any possible minor smyxusl 1+4 characteristics of toe neutral synbols. (The judges pointed out that most of the neutral symbols 13d Very minor sexasl characte;isticn out not to toe extent that tie; colld actually be Classified as male or fexele in the Freuiian sense). Slbgects rnceived scores of O to la accoriing to the number of sexual symbols they correctly identified. Sym J1 Test II: (See Appendix II, p;. 87-59) This test was lsed in the investigation of Hypo— these-:5 IV, V and VI. It is compose/l of twelve items, each iten Consisting of three symbols: a conventional s"mbol, a Freudian seXlal symbol and a neutral symbol. The symbols (line irawings of objects) were selected by Judges from a pool of 120 svuools of ‘ne experinentnr's own design (See Table B, A L ‘ vpendix I). They were selected by tne igreenent of turee O“t of foot jldges on the following criteria: 1) The conventional symbols are associated witn males or females in our society and 1T9 neutral from 1 Frealian stanl— ooint. (Symbol leaignetion = HR for culturillg male, Freudian ‘ V neutrll; l“ for cultl“fillj female, Treqdiun neltril). 2) The Freaiian_synbols meet the cri,eriw 9f Freaiien sexual symbolism but héve no gredorinant conventional sexual asso- ciations, i.e. tney are neutr 1 from a conventionnj_ etznl- point. (Symbol designation = NR for culturally neartril, - "1 fl 7‘. ‘ .' V 1‘ ”54“” Freldian male; NF for culturally neutral, fireailau 'Lewavl- 45 3) qu neuir l 33 sols have neither couventiorul Ru? Freudian J T sexual assccll ions (Symbol designation = Nb). In alditicn the judges i '1tei the symbblic objects from 1 La 6 iccordiug to the Ville they mi3ht have for the colle 3e 88 of this study. B] "value" is neunt any sort of aesthetic, utilitarian, recreational or economic anneal that tie ob ects ni 3‘ht have. The juc3es' value ratings were then averu3el in order to prolice u mean value 3 tin’3 for eoch svnbolic ObJ ect. LN (EN), EN (NF) and NN objects of similar mean value ratit3s (mean ratin33 :ithin one point of one another) were sssi3ned to the same items. Position of syn- bolic objects within items was accenplisnefl by means of a ta!le of random number with tie stipulstion that conven- tib Hi1 aifl Freulian synuolic (thiectx within an item be of the same sex and thit all three objec ts Vitnin an item be eluated fur value. This prwcedure yes an lti envt to preclide re- sponscs based on sex differences uni/or value. {‘11, ',.. ‘J.-- .r- .u r'( -‘ .1 ”"0 ins lhbtPuCtlunS were as follows. Be CW 3 e l2 ng-ups of three ob3ects. For escn 3rouy, JIHCG a C 18C} :Imirk (v0 on tne line oirectly below the 0L33Ct IJh't JOU most QFQfLT. CJQCR onlr one objec per 3roup, uni please guess if Aeneas IV. Tie number of resyonses in such category, convention-:11, Freudian and neltrai, heterminei the scares for tibse respec- tive cate ie ()4 Since thfire were twelve items, *1 subgect COuld have obtlined a genre of iron 0 to 12 for snwr one category. Mauisley ‘erscnalitv Inventory (LFI): (See Appeniix II, pp. 90—93) ‘v "-3 "I" I " , f: 2" e 1v ~.- :0. i.‘~ Y TJfl kLI 545 oevelopeo bf PI. J. L«senc¢ s3eciiiceilJ to newsore the personality v3ri “bl s of neuroticism and extrdversion— introveraion. For tie present stiiy it was isei in the inve: i3uti on of Hypotfieses II tnrou3h VI. Jensen (1958) has piblisned the MRI 3x3 has 3ive_3 a iescripticn of its ieveloPLont and use: It is intended to reisure on the verbal level two dimensions of personality: Introversion-Extraversion ani Nearoticism. (p. 514) The E (exti‘é-aver..-'-ion) and I? (neuru‘tioism) 80311913 of toe I»..'l.‘I ware derivel from. r13t11’1‘ elaborote procedures involving item analys's wni f‘ctor analrsin of otuer ”personality inventories, prim: ioallr the Giilford invent r; cf factors CTDCR and Lne Kanlslef Malioal 34e5nxiomnai313. Tina th-z&3xler, EC ani.ll, navszlii3h "Construct validity", that is the items makin3 up tie scales are ni3nlj "irieiwi i witn tie f~ctor they are saii in leisuro std tiey h3ve infliirhi Mi‘filt cor- relations Jlth otier factors. Tne iters have been selected so '18 to minimize the Correlation between tyxe IE and If scalxrs. ifiue two i“retorw: are t «n. re Itmhnitel as ort303onel, i.e., ancerreiated ultn one HDotHQF. 0. [Tie RBI] consisis of 24 E-sc~.le iters, 24 N—scale items, 20 Lie-scale itexs , Lni l2 ”buffer" itens ancfii n21.) in L3n1oe1Lirw; t it‘llltUIV? of inie ic~i..on— .nniiw3;fro1 tine sobje ectz. Tne»i;ie SC“J£> was i 11-;9n3331 to netect sobjects vbo tenl to present tnenswlves in a favorable li3l:t to s :c-1 an extent as to m 11kt“: the valility of their sc>res inestionible. A recor‘ an; be r33zr1ed 3s "(iinitelg Sisgect in this resyec t 1 :more thin 10 of tie Lie sc«le itens alt: unaverei in tie keyed direction. ‘4 F5 (" r 4 ‘ ». ,‘ I ,7 .. ' . _ , - /\ f} " ( .f- *1 ‘v r . q .pcor‘iILl . - "‘3‘ 0 LL in ts are 311111 to ti, .1 a 9.1 5:" ”3‘7“ . 7, ‘ ‘ fl .7 l‘ ' ’I ‘ '~ ‘ ' r‘ .‘ " V' . " +‘ ". ‘1‘ Baa 1 e I o . {Lie Leif-3;: 9. 39011.93 '3 , (3.11.1 one Ruin ..- t 3 i. (.63 . ~ , ’1‘ ‘ ,. ‘ . ,v 'V 4 I! " | .\ ...- (188161111, yd SC file) 13f 1+? " ?" . TEUJS t-3!"f pdnh 3L ~).Le CwL LIP. j «I i. 3 . n - '2‘ 7 of sungres .31 the TCeij . sywiles 15% fIKAUKJ it) “*>. (3- fl15) F ~47 Con r31 LeHSJres BecaU33 3 gravimus stndy (Clin, 1901) den 1 ‘r'ted a fositive r lati onrmLp betwe9n iHCElliQBMCE an} t13 ability to CUI‘I‘t'Ctij' L‘CSQQD-‘l t1 Freqziim'; symbolism, :1 Com rol reason: of intcl Li quvwa, Mas Jxefiw ingijqurLation :nnfixayt of tne chav] 3Aialt Intwl innce Scale. This 3ubte:t was causen 4-:LQ..L because it takes 3 relatively short tire to complete ‘0 o H. Cf L.) J) l V f 'V' ‘ 7| . r ' ,‘. r~ ‘- Vv 3\ J o' ‘ . x ' "‘_'\ 1 .. P" ‘ ‘ , ‘t‘ ‘: ‘n‘ e Malld' 50 1 ed out,11crw; lhinortruit, :Lt cthcie1 ptc3 131:9 -1iiglly ‘7‘ V-Jith to: 1111 Scale I“ tnan any" other of the 5:1121t-3s‘:1;s_-2 ._ 3 r = .84. (Uccnjler, 133 Tue Inflammation ciacestioz .3 were $111771I1is trs. Pl in written fcri (seen >~nd1 K II, pp. 94-95) with the following written instructions: . » ’ , «1 ‘ '3 - — .- ' -- , . 7.: Belovz ire =1 SHIfixfib 3t .17 §:flrifll 11rfo11~1titr1 ' ' : \ ‘. ' I. '. ", ‘ 3 A- ‘ I I f I ‘ 9 . F V 1 I‘- J' , -V ‘ r 1b1es 1:»13. ’P1e .1111)» or“): :IXB Very. 9485 Do , “1.1 L-tnfl“ . \ 1 r‘ ‘ . . . ' «7 ,. , A 1 .° ‘4‘ ' . 4— ‘_ , ‘ _ 1 - ones chure lDC‘ ze 31n51J bore diillcult. {lathe urite . -'/‘ . ,\ D '\ ' . ~ . . ’\ ‘ n - - 1 . ‘ o y “ " " . " ' N a biici cthmOI foi ewux 18 , f0}. 5 9.“! 13:13} 1111-14., 1? 13 L-.L Iti:‘ tllrmJu 5h. t11u ‘b110kfléét Tuaik you for ycar cnofleration. RESULTS Results Pertaining £9 Hypotheses The main results of this study are presented in Tables 2 and 4 (pp. 50 and 52), and are arranged in the text in the order of the hypotheses. The raw data for individual Ss are presented in Appendix III (pp, 96-101). Hypothesis I: Subjects will be able to identify male and female Freudian sexual symbols as masculine and feminine respectively when these symbols are presented among sexually neutral symbols. Support for Hypothesis I was obtained from male and female subjects considered both separately and as a total sample. Chance probabilities for obtaining the scores of O to 12 were computed by means of the binomial expansion (Siegel, 1950) and are shown in Table 5 (p- 51). Comparing the mean ST I scores of Table 2 (p. 50) with the probabilities of obtaining those scores shown in Table 5 (p. 51), it can be seen that males obtained a mean ST I score of 8.01 (p«<.015), females obtained a mean ST I score of 7.52 (p<;.048) and the total sample obtained a mean ST I score of 7.76 (p<:.048). 49 TABLE 2 Medians, Means, Standard Deviations and Ranges of Scores Obtained on the Maudsley Personality Inventory and Symbol Tests I and II Median Mean SD Range Hales (n z 98) .MPI Extraversion 51.91 51.21 8.52 .12 46 Neuroticism 29.67 28.97 9.10 4 47 ST I 8.70 8.01 2.54 l 12 ST II Conventional 2.60 2.54 1.67 0 8 Freudian 5.18 4.64 1.65 0 10 Neutral 5.59 5.02 1.60 l 9 Females (n = 90) MP1 Extraversion 51.17 29.89 8.09 11 46 Neuroticism 50.55 28.58 9.24 8 46 ST I 8.10 7.52 2.21 2 12 ST II Conventional 5.50 5.06 1.77 0 8 Freudian 4.85 4.26 1.47 O 8 Neutral 5.15 4.69 1.68 l 8 Total (N = 188) MP1 Extraversion 51.54 50.58 8.21 ll 46 Neuroticism 50.00 28.78 9.61 4 47 ST I 8.40 7.78 2.29 1 l2 . ST II Conventional 2.95 2.68 1.75 0 8 Freudian 5.01 4.46 1.57 0 10 Neutral 5.51 4.86 1.64 l 9 50 51 TABLE 5 Chance Probabilities for Obtaining Scores of 0 to 12 on Symbol Test I Score p Score p 0 .007707 7 .047689 1 .046244 8 .014905 2 .127171 9 .005512 5 .211952 10 .000497 4 .258446 11 .000045 5 .190757 12 .000002 6 .111275 Total p = 1.000000 Eypothesis II: There will be a negative relationship between neuroticism and the ability to correctly identify male and female Freudian sexual symbols from among sexually neutral symbols. Hypothesis III: There will be a positive relationship between introversion and the ability to correctly identify Freudian sexual symbols from sexually neutral symbols. Neither of these hypotheses was supported oy the data as is shown in Table 4 (p. 52). For males, females and total sample, the Pearson as between the Maudsley Per- sonality Inventory Extraversion and Neuroticism scales and Symbol Test I were all low, non-significant, positive cor- relations which were in the direction Opposite from that TABLE 4 Relationships Between the Maudsley Personality Inventory and Symbol Tests I and II (Pearson rs and Contingency Coefficients) 52 MPI ST I ST II N C F NN Pearson 3s Males MPI E -.019 .126 .059 .122 -.165 N .091 -.089 -.052 .147 Females MPI E -.100 .126 -.180 -.052 .219* N .024 .205 -.221* -.024 Total MPI E -.054 .155 -.085 .062 .029 N .065 .045 -.122 .068 Contingency Coefficients Males MPI E .04 .05 .02 .02 .02 N .02 .02 .05 .04 Females MPI E .02 .14 .17 .02 .17 N .14 .14 .14 .02 Total MPI E .01 .02 .02 .01 .02 N .01 .01 .02 .01 ‘ .05 level of significance 55 predicted. (Note: Hypothesis III would have been supported by a negative correlation because a low MPI E-scale score is taken to be indicative of introversion). Further statistical tests of Hypotheses II and III were carried out by means of non-parametric contingency co- efficients (Siegel, 1956, pp. 196—202). Frequencies of Ss scoring above and below the medians of tie MPI N— and E-scales were compared with the frequencies of the same Ss scoring above and below the median score of Symbol Test I (See Table 2, p. 50 for medians). No significant relationships were found for males, females or the total sample (see Table 4, p. 52). Hypothesis IV: If asked to indicate a preference for one of three types of sexual symbols, conventional, Freudian or neutral, Ss who are relatively extraverted will tend to choose the conventional symbols. Hypothesis V: If asked to indicate a preference for one of three types of sexual symbols, conventional, Freudian or neutral, Ss who are relatively introverted will tend to choose the Freudian symbols. Hypothesis VI: If asked to indicate a preference for one of three types of sexual symbols, conventional, Freudian or neutral, Ss who are relatively neurotic will tend to choose the neutral symbols. 54 Hypotheses IV, V and VI were not supported by the data as is shown in Table 4, p. 52. The correlations per- taining to the specific hypotheses were all non-significant and their directions showed no consistent pattern. The contingency coefficients were also all non-significant. Additional analyses showed two significant correlations for Female 83. Une was a negative correlation between the MPI N-scale and the Freudian symbol scores of Symbol Test II (r = -.221, p<1.05), and the other was a positive correlation between the FBI E-scale and the neutral symbols of Symbol Test II (r = .219, p< .05). However, little practical con- sequence is attributed to these correlations since one of them would be expected on a chance blSiS from the total of twenty-seven correlation coefficients that were computed, and also since their respective contingency coefficients were both non-significant (See Table 4, p. 52). Because significant sex differences appeared in 88' responses to Symbol Test II (See below, pp. 55—58) which might have masked the predicted results, further tests of Hypotheses IV, V and VI were made by considering male and female 38' performance on the male and female items of Symbol Test II taken as separate groups of items. Contingency coefficients computed between the frequencies of Ss scoring above and below the medians of the MPI E- and N-scales and frequencies of the same 88 scoring above and oelow the medians of the conventional and Freudian scores on the 55 separate groups of male and female items of Symbol Test II were all non-significant for both male and female 38 (See Table 5, p. 56). Thus, these further statistical tests also failed to produce support for Hypotheses IV, V and VI. Supplementapy Results Contrary to the findings of some previous studies (Jensen, 1958), no significant negative correlation was found between the MPI E- and N-scales (See Table 4, p. 52). No significant correlations were found between age (r = .095) or IQ (r = .065) and the ability to correctly identify the Freudian sexual symbols of Symbol Test I. Also, no sex differences were found in this ability, i.e. a t-test of the difference between the mean symbol scores of male and female 83 on Symbol Test I was not significant, and chi squares comparing frequencies of correct and incorrect re- Sponses of male and female 83 to masculine and feminine sym- bols of Symbol Test I were also non-significant. Symbol Test I had an odd—even, split-half reliability coefficient of .657, p< .01, (Spearman-Brown formula). As shown by the chi squares in Table 6, p. 57, highly significant sex differences in symbol preference were elicited on Symbol Test II. Male 85 showed a greater pre- ference than female 88 for masculine conventional and TABLE 5 Contingency Coefficients Between MPI N-Scores, E—Scores and ST II Conventional (C) and Freudian (F) Scores for Separate Groups of Masculine Masculine Items (5) and Feminine Items Feminine Items (9) Male Ss MPI N vs ST II C .27 .02 MPI N vs ST II F .02 .12 MPI E vs ST II C .02 .04 MPI E vs ST II F .16 .02 Female Ss MPI N vs ST II C not calculated1 .05 MPI N vs ST II F .14 .02 MPI E vs ST II c not calculatedl .17 MPI E vs ST II F .22 .02 1Contingency coefficients were not calculated because no median could be determined since 82 out of 90 females received a preference score of zero on the masculine conventional symbols. \I“ O\ TABLE 6 Differential Preference Choice Frequencies for Symbols of Masculine and Feminine Items of Symbol Test II by Male and Female 88 1 Preference Choices Male Female Total Chi for: Ss Ss Choices Square p Masc. Items 2 Conven. Symbols 85 (17) 10 (02) Fem. Items Conven. Symbols 144 (28) 265 (55) 89.40 .001 Total Conven. Symbol Choices 229 (45) 275 (55) 504 (100) Masc. Items 5 Freudian Symbols 120 (14) 145 (17) Fem. Items Freudian Symbols 555 (40) 258 (29) 12.16 .001 Total Freudian Symbol Choices 455 (54) 585 (46) 858 (100) Masc. Items # Neutral Symbols 89 (09) 115 (15) Fem. Items Neutral Symbols 405 (44) 507 (54) 25.21 .001 Total Choices Neutral Symbols 492 (55) 422 (47) 914 (100) Total Preference Choices 1176 1080 2256 1 2 Total preference choices = 188 Ss x 12 items = 2256. Percent of total conventional symbol choices. 3Percent of total Freudian symbol choices. 4Percent of total neutral symbol choices. 57 58 feminine Freudian symbols, whereas the Opposite was true for females, i.e. they showed a greater preference than males for feminine conventional and masculine Freudian symbols. The females also received a mean conventional symbol score (Mean = 5.06) that was significantly higher than the mean conventional symbol score obtained by the males (Mean = 2.54, t = 2.89, p 46 22 6 6 12 2 1 5 0 5 5 6 19 122 52 24 5 6 11 1 o 1 l 5 6 5 19 12D 42 50 5 5 10 2 2 4 1 5 4 4 19 1:2 57 52 4 6 10 0 1 1 5 6 9 2 19 122 40 44 5 6 9 0 1 1 2 4 6 5 19 122 20 21 5 4 9 0 1 1 2 2 4 7 19 122 53 51 5 4 5 0 1 1 2 4 6 5 19 122 26 28 5 5 8 2 0 2 0 6 6 4 19 122 18 57 5 5 8 1 2 5 1 5 4 5 19 122 25 45 5 5 8 0 1 1 1 5 4 7 19 122 7 28 4 4 8 1 1 2 1 4 5 5 19 122 19 12 2 5 7 2 0 2 1 2 5 7 19 122 5‘ 28 1 6 7 0 1 1 1 6 7 4 19 122 3C 11 1 5 6 1 5 4 1 4 5 3 19 122 55 56 5 5 6 1 0 1 1 5 6 5 19 122 51 6 2 4 6 5 5 6 0 5 5 5 19 122 44 1s 2 2 4 0 2 2 2 2 4 6 15 115 52 25 6 6 2 0 0 0 1 4 5 7 19 115 50 20 4 6 10 1 1 2 G 5 5 5 19 115 56 26 5 6 9 0 0 0 5 5 6 6 19 115 54 44 5 6 9 0 1 1 2 4 6 5 19 115 44 42 5 4 9 0 2 2 1 5 6 4 19 115 54 19 1 6 7 1 2 5 l 5 4 5 19 115 50 56 0 5 5 c 0 0 2 4 6 6 9 115 54 58 1 0 1 1 2 5 1 5 4 5 19 108 56 55 4 2 6 1 2 5 1 4 5 4 18 148 57 24 5 6 11 0 0 0 1 4 5 7 1 148 16 29 5 4 7 1 1 2 2 2 4 6 18 141 55 54 5 6 11 1 4 5 1 2 5 4 18 155 30 30 5 6 11 2 5 5 0 2 2 5 18 155 12 2 5 6 9 1 0 1 1 4 5 6 18 128 59 14 6 6 12 0 0 0 2 6 8 4 16 126 57 45 4 6 10 2 2 4 0 5 5 5 6; 18 126 58 44 6 4 10 1 0 1 1 1 2 9 70 16 128 18 50 2 6 8 0 2 2 1 5 4 6 71 18 128 24 45 5 5 8 0 1 0 2 4 2 6 72 18 128 40 47 2 4 6 0 0 o 1 6 7 5 75 18 128 29 55 1 4 5 1 2 5 2 5 5 4 74 16 12: 25 16 2 5 5 1 0 1 1 5 6 5 75 18 128 51 57 1 5 4 1 0 1 1 5 9 4 7 76 18 122 45 6 6 6 12 1 0 1 2 6 8 5 77 16 122 41 16 6 4 10 1 5 4 1 5 4 4 78 16 22 25 17 4 6 10 5 0 5 0 5 5 6 79 18 122 26 50 5 6 9 0 0 0 5 5 6 6 80 18 122 18 28 5 6 9 1 2 5 2 > 4 5 —--.-—. —————«4 ’5. TI" 5“ A. I" it ’1‘ C 1(- N Hm... "—-.—-—--.o.-—..--r.o -5 B113 1 1% 1,111.31 , 75627 L. 3.. 2 7).. 3.1 22.1 22 )2 510 11. mu 3.. 124/004. 1 l a). o l l O «U 9:. 7) C 0/60 r74 3 l 4 51 2 #0 5 7), L- ,3; ./O 0.610 . 8 4 4 2 2 OO/n/rfirD 1.4 2 7),. a; 7,, )bfidmdfi1rx/ 3...,11M -..l 1111.1..1 wc 8 6O 8 2V 1 l l l l l 3.. 74/.4 .1), vb Ow CU RV 8 21.6, 4 7.6 4 5,4 .4 .,o .4.\// 11,4, .6 Dr. rfil/ H). .3. r) l A. 01111 14. Z: . . 71,..11. 1 mix" A); 2/ 1L 2J1LOOO 9 c 7 .6 2, C) ...0 Y), 71,. \1 78 20 74/213,? Ad .1... 5 1.. Alva 1.111 Zr/ 1 ”5) O .b 6., 2 D... 2 m/ no 0/ 2;. 9. 2/ 101 . L" n, no 1: g ‘ u- a we: ‘ L» UL ”THiflflflnfiflifliflnfifiifliflflflfifljlflififlmfl'“