ABSTRACT

THE TRAINING OF OPENNESS AND
ITS EFFECTS ON INQUIRY

By
Richard Malcolm Piper

Previous studies have shown that certain personality
characteristics, for example, cognitive complexity and
verbal fluency, predispose one to inquire in a particular
way. The major purpoSe of the present study was to inves-
tigate the possibility of training people to behave in a
manner consistent with those characteristics and to study
the effects of such training on inquiry behavior. Subsi-
diary to this purpose was a desire to assess the manner in
which seeking style and training interact to influence
inquiry behavior.

Sixty female college students were selected to repre-
sent one of two seeking styles, dialectical or didactic.
subjects were then divided into three experimental groups;
training in problem solving, training in openness, and
training in concept learning. Following training, gs were
observed in a complex inquiry situation, the Teacher's

In-Basket.

For this particular study the only comparison of inter-

est was between the openness training group and the concept
learning group. An openness posttest administered to both

groups revealed no significant difference between them.

Richard Malcolm Piper
Further analysis suggested that openness training, though
not effective overall, may have been effective for that
subgroup called didactic seekers.

Turning to the effects of openness training on inquiry
behavior, results showed that the only effect of openness
training was to increase the time spent in inquiry and the
number of pieces of material processed. This was inter-
preted to mean that openness training acts upon the commit-
ment to inquire but has no effect at all upon inquiry skills
22£.§23

Contrary to results of previous studies, there was no
effect at all for seeking style. Data were examined in an
attempt to account for this negative finding.

Another variable manipulated in the study was cueing.
Half the subjects were cued within the inquiry session to
use what they learned in training. The other half was not
cued. There was no effect due to cueing.

I The results have at least two implications for a theory
of inquiry. One is that inquiry should be conceived of as
consisting of two relatively independent components: (a)
commitment to inquire and (b) inquiry proper. A second is
that effective inquiry is dependent upon field—specific
learning.

For education, the implications seem to be that it is
possible to train people to make a commitment to inquiry.
This commitment will not itself improve the effectiveness

of inquiry but it does form one of the prerequisites.

THE TRAINING OF OPENNESS
AND ITS EFFECTS ON INQUIRY

BY

Richard Malcolm Piper

A THESIS

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

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Counseling, Personnel Services
and Educational Psychology

1969

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Over a period of two years previous to the research
recorded here it was my privilege to work with Professor
Lee S. Shulman in his study of inquiry. It was out of this
Work that the present study was born. Throughout the year
in which it was being developed, Professor Shulman, as
thesis director, lent his help; questioning, probing, criti—
cizing. His contributions were always positive and sup- -
portive. He communicated a warmth of friendship that will
always be remembered and appreciated.

The members of the thesis committee, Joe L. Byers,
Robert Craig, and Arthur Elstein, gave valuable help,
especially at the time‘when the thesis proposal was being
developed. At the end of the project they gave sacrificially
of their time to read the rough draft and participate in orals.

This project was unique in that it was carried out
jointly with a friend and fellow graduate student, Michael J.
Loupe. Mike, along with his wife Stephanie, helped with all
phases of the research. Most important for me was the
thoughtful consideration Mike always gave to questions and
problems I brought to him.

Mrs. Wayne Askew, a secretary-friend gave willingly of

her time to do spur-of-the moment jobs like typing and

ii

copying. She was a life-saver.

Another person who was deeply involved in this research
was my wife, Joyce. She scored tests, typed hundreds of
pages of 10gs and, though we had planned differently, ended
up typing the final draft.

Perhaps the most abused people in a project like this
are the writer's children. They are constantly asked to
leave, or to be quiet or to wait, ad nauseum. Douglas and
Carla have been patient and now look forward like mother
and father to some days of fun in the sun together.

People like those above have made life in a multiversity
seem more like life in a big family. My deepest thanks go

to all of them.

ill

CHAPTER

I

II

III

IV

TABLE OF CONTENTS

OVERVIEW . .,. . .
Purpose . . . .
Hypotheses . .
Theory . . . .
A Look Ahead .

REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Studies Underlying the Model of

Openness . .

Studies Related to Attitude Change
Training

A Synthesis of Models

METHOD . . . . . . . . .

Subjects . . .
Instrumentation

Experimental Design .

Analysis . . .

for

O

Openness Training Procedure

Problem Solving Training Procedure

Control Training Procedure
The Teacher‘s In—Basket

Control for Bias

Dependent Variables
Statistical Hypotheses

Summary . . . .

RESULTS . . . . .

The Selection Battery .

The Training Posttests

Results Relating to Inquiry

iv

16
17

17
21

25

29
30
31
35
38
38
45
M6
47
52
53
59
61

63
63
66
71

CHAPTER
V

VI

REFERENCES
AEPENQIX

NUOUJ3>

DISCUSSION . . . . . . . . . . .
Seeking Style and Inquiry . .
Training and Inquiry . . . .
Academic Aptitude and Inquiry
Cueing and Inquiry . . . . .

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS . . . .
Implications for Theory . . .
Implications for Education .
Implications for Research . .

Scoring Key for Competence . . .
The Selection Battery . . . . .
Some Openness Training Materials
Supplementary Statistical Tables
Complete Raw Data . . . . . . .

319.1

79
79
89
94
99

101
103
105
107

110

112
117
131
143
149

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE PAGE
1 13881ng Of Study 0 ,. O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 38
2 Means of three openness training groups for
first and second administrations of the
Inventory of Beliefs . . . . . . . . . . . 44

3 Means for seeking style variables classified
by training groups . . . . . . . . . . . . 64

b Means and standard deviations for selected
variables from two studies of inquiry . . . 65

5 Matrix of intercorrelations among seeking
style variables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66

6 Means and standard deviations for posttest
variables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67

7 Correlation of dogmatism with seeking style
variables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7O

8 Means and standard deviations for inquiry
variables classified by seeking style . . . 71

9 Means and standard deviations for inquiry
variables classified by training . . . . . 72

10 Means and standard deviations for inquiry
variables classified by cueing . . . . . . 73

11 Means and standard deviations related to
treatment X cueing interaction . . . . . . 74

12 Correlations of seeking style variables with
inquiry variables . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75

13 Correlations of academic aptitude variables
with inquiry variables. . . . . . . . . . . 77

1h Correlations between dogmatism and inquiry
variables 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 78

vi

TABLE PAGE

15 Spearman Rank Correlations among Inventory
of Beliefs, Dogmatism Scale, and General
Inquiry O O O O O 0 O O O O O O O O 0 O O O 82

16 Means for General Inquiry and CQT Total
classified by seeking style and training
group O O O O C O C O O O C O O O O O O O O 87

17 Means and standard deviations for CQT Total
classified by treatment . . . . . . . . . . 95

18 Distribution of academic aptitude among
cells - CQT Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96

19 Problem Sensitivity means for cells

classified by seeking style, treatment,
and cueing O O O O O O 0 O O O 0 O O O O O 98

vii

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE PAGE

1 The theoretical relationship of approximation
to an ideal polar type (dialectical or
didactic) and the amount of error variance
in predictions made of inquiry performance . 85

2 Plot of cell means on CQT Total, General
Inquiry, and Dogmatism for openness train-
ing group O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 O 97

3 Plot of treatment X cueing interaction for
Problem Sensitivity . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98

u Diagram showing the three prerequisites to
problem sensing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105

5 Unanswered questions about interrelations of
inquiry and field-specific learning . . . . 106

viii

CHAPTER I

OVERVIEW

A young man is sitting at his desk working over an exam.
As he works beads of sweat form on his forehead. He twists
and turns a great deal, bites his pencil and frowns. The
instructor notices these signs of examinee discomfort. He
also notices that the young man is quite behind the other
examinees in terms of the number of exam items responded to.
The instructor makes note of this. Later, he discovers that
our discomfitted young student has failed the exam. The
instructor looks further into the case and discovers that the
student in question has recently transferred in from Holland
where he had established a quite acceptable level of academic
performance. Given the apparent high ability of the student,
the instructor judges that the young man's most recent per-
formance is incongruent with what one might reasonably expect.
He therefore begins to search for some explanation. To what
might this poor performance be attributed? Could it be a
language difficulty, unfamiliarity with the form of objective
examinations, insufficient study, inadequate entry skills?
All of these present themselves as possible reasons. The
instructor determines to have a talk with the young

man so that the cause of his acute anxiety and poor

performance may be identified and eliminated, thus permitting
him to perform at a level more nearly congruent with his
aptitude.

The picture of the instructor dealing with the problem
of the examinee is a picture of a man inquiring. Inquiry is
a ubiquitous human activity, an activity which begins with
the recognition that some indeterminate situation is proble-
matic and which moves in the direction of resolving that
indeterminacy. Dewey (1938) defines inquiry thus: "Inquiry
is the controlled or directed transformation of an indeter-
minate situation into one that is so determined in its
constituent distinctions and relations as to convert the ele-
ments of the original situation into a unified whole (p. 109)."

Using the picture of the anxious student and the puz_
zled instructor, it should be possible to illustrate what
Dewey means. The indeterminate situation in this case is
the able student, ridden with anxiety and floundering aca—
demically. The situation is indeterminate in Dewey's meaning
precisely because it is impossible to predict its outcome.
Will the student ultimately succeed or not? This ignorance
of the consequences will remain until the interrelations
among the constituent elements can be determined. Once these
are determined we have the unified whole about which Dewey
speaks. We can perhaps move the student toward success.

Inquiry proper does not begin with an indeterminate
situation. Rather the indeterminate situation provides the

antecedent conditions. It begins when a person recognizes

that the situation is in fact indeterminate. "To see that a
situation requires inquiry is the initial step in inquiry
(ibid., p. 107). Thus, in the case before us, inquiry began
when the instructor noticed that one of his students was
exhibiting symptoms of anxiety. In this moment the indeter-
minate situation had been converted into a problematic one.
Once inquiry gets under way with the recognition of a
situation as problematic it is important that the problem be
formulated in such a way as to make reference to a possible
solution. The danger here is that the problem statement or
formulation will prematurely seize on a false or inadequate
solution, thus closing the inquiry to other more tenable
solutions. One protects himself against this by taking time
to assess the relevant facts in the situation, constantly
reformulating the problem in terms of the demands made by new
information. In ideal form these formulations state what will
happen when certain operations are performed under certain
conditions. In terms of the illustration above, once the
instructor recognized the problem, he began searching for
relevant facts so as to be able to formulate hypotheses which
would suggest a possible solution. The student was from
Europe. Perhaps he had not therefore sufficiently'1mastered
English. This is a testable hypothesis and would lead to
further observations. Presumably, if the instructor allowed
the situation to stay "open" long enough to make and test
sufficient hypotheses, he would transform the situation into

a determinate one, that is, he would identify the variables

relevant to the student's poor performance and their inter—
relations,thus making it possible for him to solve the student's
problem.

Using Dewey's theory of inquiry as a model, Shulman (1963)
undertook a study of the determinants of inquiry. In this
study he summarized Dewey's model in a four point outline.
Four processes, for him, constituted the elements of inquiry.
The four processes were (a) problem sensing, (b) problem
formulation, (0) search and (d) resolution. This outline was
conceived of as a general model for describing the manner in
which the inquirer deals with the environment, a way of han-
dling input which produces the greatest understanding of
phenomena as well as the most useful social consequences.

Not that he always goes about it exactly in this order. In
reality the inquirer may start by sensing a problem, formulate
the problem, sense another problem, return to gather informa-
tion related to the first problem, stop short of actual
resolution, return to reformulate a second problem and so on.
As Shulman, Loupe, & Piper (1968) have observed, this process
of inquiry looks much more like a computer routine with its
many loops and digressions than like a four point outline
followed in some invariant order.

If Dewey's four-process description is an adequate
characterization of the way inquirers go about their inquir-
ing, it might be relevant to ask whether or not there are
underlying personality characteristics which determine one's

effectiveness as an inquirer, that is, characteristics which

 

.I

#44.

\

-._§

\\5

F‘.

‘i

determine how sensitive one is to problematic situations, how
widely one searches for relevant information, and how competent
one is in the solutions he reaches. This was one of the ques-
tions asked by Shulman 23 al., (1968). They began with an

a priori model of the effective inquirer based on the work of
Stern, Stein, & Bloom (1956); Witkin (1954); Schachtel (1959);
and Lewin (194A). The model included these characteristics:
high associational fluency, preference for the complex and

the ambiguous, preference for discussions over lectures, high
field independence, non-stereopathy, and high risk-taking.
People above the median on all these measures were classified
as dialectiggl_seekers; those below the median on all the

measures were classified as didactic seekers. Selecting on

 

these variables, it was found that dialectical seekers spent
more time in inquiry, processed more pieces of material, con-
sulted more sources, sensed more problems, and proposed more
competent solutions than did didactic seekers. It was con-
cluded that certain underlying personality characteristics do
Serve as determinants of effective inquiry, that these char-
acteristics predispose one to be a particular kind of inquirer.
Given that effective inquiry as defined in this study is
a desirable way of dealing with indeterminate situations and
given Mun;effective inquiry is partially determined by definable
cognitive characteristics, it would be useful to ascertain
Whether these underlying determinants can be developed or modi-
fied through training so as to produce more effective inquirers.

The present study addresses itself to this question. If it

is possible to improve inquiry behavior through training, this

would have important implications for education at all levels.

Purpose

The purpose of this study is to assess the modifiability
through training of certain specific cognitive and person-
ality characteristics Which are presumed to underlie and
predispose one to effective inquiry. The effects of the
training are observed in a complex and ambiguous problem-
solving situation which has been used repeatedly to study

inquiry performance (Shulman, 1963; Shulman et_al,, 1968).

Hypotheses

Expected results can be stated briefly. A group
trained in those characteristics presumed to facilitate
inquiry will be superior to a control group on all measures
of inquiry effectiveness. These specific measures will be
enumerated_and_described in Chapter III of this dissertation.
It is further anticipated that the group cued to use what it
learned through training will be superior to the uncued group
on all measures of inquiry. The group selected to conform
most closely to the model developed in training (that of the
dialectical or "open" seeker) will be superior on all measures
of inquiry to the group selected to conform less closely to
the model. Finally, it is expected that the group initially

lower on the desired characteristics will benefit more from

training than the group which was initially higher.

Theory

The theory underlying the present study posits relation-
ships between certain personality constructs such as complex-
ity and non-stereopathy and inquiry behavior. Inquiry
behavior has already been defined by Shulman's adaptation of
Dewey's theory of inquiry. It remains to describe the related
personality constructs and to show how they are believed to
affect inquiry.

Before doing that, however, it would be well to show some
of the formal similarities among the constructs. First, each
of them, rather than being described by a point, is described
by a continuum. The theorist defines the polar extremes and
then locates individuals within a population with respect to
their positions on the continuum between the extremes. One
danger in this kind of representation is that it may be used
to develop dualistic categories within which the investigator
classifies all subjects. This temptation will be resisted
here. The intention is to locate people along the continua
in a ”more or less" relationship with regard to the extremes.
The extremes themselves are regarded as stereotypes. Pre-
sumably individuals representing these extremes are rarely
found except in Dante or the Gospels.

A second similarity among the constructs is that, while
they are represented pictorially as though they were unidi-
mensional, they are probably in fact multidimensionsl. As
yet there is no known empirical evidence that this multi-

dimensionality is in fact the case. Hopefully the dimensionality

8

of these variables will one day be an object of study.

Personality constructs. The first variable of interest
is defined by Schachtel (1959). It is a variable represented
by a continuum whose extremes are defined by the terms allgy
centrism and autocentrism. These terms describe two
different ways of perceiving the world. The autocentric per-
son is predisposed to perceive only those objects or aspects
of objects which satisfy some basic need or deficiency. The
allocentric person, on the other hand, goes beyond need-
dominated perception. He perceives things as exisitng in
their own right. He has a greater openness to the world in
the sense that he sees more things and sees them in greater
detail. The distinction which Schachtel draws between allo—
centric and autocentric perception is almost identical to that
which Maslow (1962) draws between B-cognition and D-cognition.

In inquiry it is extremely important that a person be
open to the full array of information bearing on the particu-
lar problem under inquiry. Initially information is sought
in terms of which the problem is formulated. Then the problem-
as-formulated sets the limits on the kind of information which
can lead to a successful conclusion. Thus, a lack of openness
to information can lead both to faulty formulation of the
problem and also to inadequate search. Increased openness
should facilitate inquiry through providing adequate amounts
of information.

A second variable of interest was studied by Stern at al.,

(1956). This variable is given by a continuum whose extremes

are defined by the terms non-stereopathy and stereopathy.

re.

pl

Mi

..~

 

~\-

1“

 

4,.

r.,
“.1

The definitions of these terms are given fully in Chapter II.
For now it will be sufficient to indicate that they represent
personality stereotypes built from the concepts and termi-
nology of psychoanalysis. Using an ideological inventory
designed to identify people who approximated these extremes,
Stern gt_al., selected two samples of freshmen to study.
Among the things which characterized the non-stereopaths in
the samples was their seeming comfort in the relatively un—
structured program in the College of the University of Chicago.
The stereopaths on the other hand showed signs of discomfort,
reflected in their much greater tendency to leave the school.

InQuiry in the natural setting is like study in the
College of the University of Chicago in that it is initially
unstructured and ambiguous. Whatever structure there is must
be supplied by the inquirer. Inquiry does not even begin
until the inquirer recognizes that he faces a situation that
requires inquiry. After that he still must set the terms of
his inquiry; how he will formulate the problem, how long and
how far he will search for information bearing on the problem,
and what for him will constitute a satisfactory solution.
This encounter with the unknown and the unstructured is
believed to be unsettling and uncomfortable for the person
who prefers known ways of doing things, who wishes to have
familiar labels for things, who likes to have other people
structure tasks for him. Presumably, then, being non-
stereopathic facilitates performance in inquiry.

Rokeach (1960, 1968) worked with a continuum whose

10

extremes are defined by the terms open-mindedness and closed-
mindedness. He emphasized cognitive structures which vary

in the degree to which they permit information to speak for
itself. The closed-minded person is one who has an inflex-
ible system of beliefs which requires all new information to
be interpreted in terms consistent with the system. The
open-minded person is characterized, on the other hand, by

a flexible system of beliefs which takes information on its
own terms and as a result gets updated constantly.

Successful inquiry almost certainly requires an open-
minded inquirer. Dewey (1938) reminds us that inquiry is
competent only "in the degree in which the operations involved
in it actually do terminate in the establishment of an objec-
tively unified existential situatton (p. 105)." By definition
then solutions which must satisfy a priori, non-objective
presuppositions cannot be competent. Data must be allowed to
speak for themselves.

Another variable of interest, seeking style, is described
by Shulman (Shulman, 1963; Shulman EE.§lr: 1968). It is a
continuum whose extremes are labeled with the terms dialectical
seeker and gigagtig_seeker. This variable is partially depen-
dent on the variables defined above. It makes explicit use
of the stereopathy-nonstereopathy typology of Stern, Stein,

& Bloom. The variable goes beyond that, however, to include
some other dimensions. The dialectical seeker is defined as
high in word fluency, preferring the complex and the ambiguous,

preferring discussions over lectures, highly field—independent,

q I

y .

«x»

1“:

Vi

A!

11

high in risk-taking, and non-stereopathic. The didactic
seeker is defined as being at the opposite side of the scale
on each of these dimensions.

Seeking style is being used in the present study because
in the studies by Shulman (1963) and Shulman et al., (1968)
it was shown that this variable is highly related to success
in inquiry. The rationale behind the use of each of the
defining dimensions is given in the sources cited.

Four dualistic typologies representing four complex per—
sonality variables have now been presented. The four are
combined in the present study to form the compound typology
called openness—closedness. Openness is a composite of
allocentric perceiving, non-stereopathy, open-mindedness,
and dialectical seeking while closedness is a composite of
their opposites. Since openness is a composite of some
characteristics which are presumed to facilitate inquiry,
the assumption is made that openness does the same. The
earlier assumption, made in respect to the four component
variables, that the extremes are not categories to which one
assigns people but rather end points on a continuum all along
which one finds people distributed, applies equally to the
composite continuum of openness-closedness.

The open person. The composite picture of the open per-

son derived from the above systems can now be given. It should
be kept in mind throughout that the characterization is gen-

eral and impressionistic rather than operational.

Here, as is often the case in such matters, it is

12
convenient for purposes of analysis to "divide" the person
into his private self and his public self. We wish to discuss
both the person as he related to himself as well as the person
in his relation to the world of external objects. The picture
given here is a composite of models offered by Schachtel,
Stern at al., and Rokeach.

The open person's private world. First then, what is the
open persOn like "inside”? One thing that each person has to
do is to come to terms with, to develop some mode of response
to, the biological impulses with which he is genetically
endowed, such as sex, affiliation, hunger, etc. The open per—
son's characteristic response is to accept his impulses as
good and act on them. He allows them expression either directly
or in Sublimated form through, for example, poetry, painting,
music. But he does not allow his impulses to predominate.
Rather he keeps them in balance with the demands of reality
and with the demands of his value system. It is in this sense
that he is a balanced person.

The open person also has a strong sense of self, as being
one distinct and separate from the rest of the environment.

He engages in introspection and self-appraisal. His view of
himself tends to be positive and accurate. He can see himself
as others see him. He likes himself, sees himself as worthy,
as adequate, as wanted, as being identified with others. Since
he has nothing he wants to hide, he tends to be self-revealing,
self-dramatizing. He allows others to see himself as he is.

The open person is more likely to be free of personality

n:—

\\
>~n

._<

13

pathology. He will suffer, as do all of us, from anxiety

but his anxiety will tend to be more focussed. He can there-
fore more easily verbalize it, label it, and thus work towards
its dissipation. His conflicts are likewise conscious and
verbalized. He is less likely to need psychiatric counseling
but if he needs it he will go get it rather than pretend that
nothing is wrong. '

He will occasionally fail in an undertaking but if he
does he has the capacity to pick up and start over again.

He is adept at overcoming personal weakness. His behavior
is plastic and flexible. He can easily adapt to changed
circumstances. He is capable of sustained effort for remote
goals.

The open person has an entirely internalized value system.
Thus he does not go around quoting authorities such as "mama
says" or "my pastor says" but says rather "I believe".

So much for what we might call the open person's per-
sonality organization. Let us talk now about his cognitive
belief system. Let us think of this system as that mass of
data which makes up the person's view of the world. How is
it organized? One principle of organization which applies
here is "integration". More of the bits of data are inte-
grated, that is, are related logically and harmonically with
one another and with the higher order primitive organizing
principles. These data are in communication with one another
rather than being organized into noncommunicating compartments

as, for instance, one compartment for science and another for

14

religion. This means that new information inputs are acted
upon in terms of their own merits. They are free to affect
the total cognitive organization and appropriate adjustments
can thus be made. In short, the open person is highly adaptive.

We can also think of any person's cognitive system as
containing some disbelief sub-systems, that is, some things
he does not believe. For instance, if he believes the Repub—
lican political philosophy, he probably disbelieves the
Democratic, the Socialistic, and other political philoso-
phies. What characterizes the relation between the open per-
son's belief and disbelief systems is the high degree of dif-
ferentiation between belief and disbelief systems as well as
within belief and disbelief systems. He knows quite clearly
how what he believes differs from what he disbelieves. While
he is committed to a particular belief system he is highly
accepting of people who are committed to different systems.

The open person's external world. A second question
with which we wanted to deal was the way the open person
relates to the world of external objects. The most general
statement we could make is that he is characterized by an
intense interest in his environment, a turning toward the
environment which is noteworthy for its totality and its
affirmativeness.

Some people see things "out there" principally as objects
of use, objects to gratify one's needs. Not so the open per-
son. He is more interested in the object as a thing in

itself. He notices the richness of the qualities of the

15

object. This kind of approach to the object, whether it be
a person or some inanimate thing, is absolutely indispensa-
ble for painter and poet, among whom we are likely to
encounter some of the world's more open people.

So much for the open person's relation to the environ-
ment in general. The relation to which we now turn is the
relation between the open person and other persons. We find
that he places great importance on interpersonal relationships.
Since he operates from the base of a secure self he is able
to and predominantly interested in carrying on transactions
with other people. Given that he does value himself and
since in general he feels free to express impulse and emo-
tion, he expresses aggression freely against any who threaten
his autonomy and independence. He knows what he feels and
he says what he means. This applies largely to authority
figures whom he sees realistically frequently as over-
protective and over-possessive. He is likely to express
ambivalence toward parents. Nevertheless, he generally
maintains good contact and rapport with others. He is sensi-
tive to and concerned with how things seem to others and he
uses this as a basis for his own behavior. He sees other
people generally as friendly, enhancing, and worthy, as
possessing integrity and dignity, as dependable, as poten-
tially fulfilling and enhancing of self. He identifies with
the underdog. He has a capacity for dramatic, idealistic
social action.

Finally, there seem to be a few characteristics of the

16

open person which do not fit neatly into the two point organ-
ization of this resume. One is the fact that he seems to

get along comfortably with, and maybe even prefers, ambi-
guity. He doubts pat answers to complicated issues. He

sees life as a process of becoming rather than as the
achievement of a settled state with goals achieved.

He sees the world as a non-threatening place. He looks
forward to the future as exciting and full of wonderful pos—
sibilities. He feels adequate to cope with life. He is less
likely than the closed person to lose himself in the "one
great true cause” in hopes of bolstering up a faltering ego.
He seeks friendships with people with varying points of
view. He relies on rational authority. He rejects so-
called absolute authorities of all types including books,
persons, and institutions. He resists "partyline" changes
in belief. He relies on his own perception of the facts

to tell him where truth lies.

A Look Ahead

The present chapter has introduced the purpose, the
objectives, and the underlying theory of the present study.
The literature underlying the theory is presented in Chapter
II. In Chapter III, the design is described. Results are
presented in Chapter IV and discussed in Chapter V. The

conclusions are stated in Chapter VI.

CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Literature related to the present study logically falls
into two categories: (a) studies which describe and explore
theoretical personality systems and (b) studies which deal
with attitude change. Studies of the first type provided
the foundation for the model of openness used here. Studies
of the second type provided the rationale for the training
procedure. The training procedure itself is described in

Chapter III.

Studies Underlying the Model of Openness

The studies in this area have been more exploratory
than experimental. They have been carried out by people
whose chief concern was with the external validation of theo-
retical models, not with the manipulation of variables
through the use of classical experimental designs.

There are literally dozens of studies that could be
cited that would be relevant for the model. Authors who
might be cited include Rogers (1962), Combs (1962), and
Maslow (1962). It was decided, however, to limit the review
to the work of Stern 23 al., (1956); Rokeach (1960); and

Shulman §t_al., (1968).

17

 

18

The studies selected for review have one thing in com-
mon; they all grew out of the same matrix, namely, the
work of Frenkel-Brunswik and her group. Rokeach was trained
by her. Stern 23 al., though not trained by her, were
influenced by her work. Shulman was one generation removed
from her but nevertheless influenced by her through the
work of Stern, Stein, and Bloom. Because of these common
origins there is a certain thread of continuity in the work.

Each of the studies reviewed has in common the fact
that a personality dichotomy is postulated. These dichoto-
mies are similar enough that it was felt reasonable to
"distill their essence” in a single model for use in a train-
ing experience.

Stereopaths and non-stereopaths. Stern §£.§l-: (1956)
started with the model of personality described in the first
chapter. It was intended ”to demonstrate that a synthetic
model can be used effectively for prediction, is susceptible
to quantitative and objective measurement, and constitutes
an economical alternative to other assessment methodologies
. . . (121g, p. 118)."

Following the development of the model, Stern §t_al.,
set out to construct an instrument that would actually
measure the parameters in the model. The result was an
ideological inventory called the Inventory of Beliefs. This
instrument is one of the principal instruments used in the
present study.

The inventory was administered to two successive

19

entering freshman classes at the College of the University
of Chicago. Students scoring plus or minus one or more
standard deviations from the mean were selected for further
study. The low group was called stereopathic. The high
group was called non-stereopathic. After equating for
intelligence, systematic differences between the groups
were studied.

The groups differed on several dimensions. 0f principal
interest to the present study was the non—stereopathic stu-
dent's greater tendency to remain in the College in spite of
its highly unstructured organization. The stereopathic
student was much more likely to leave the situation.

The open and closed mind. Rokeach has long been interes—
ted in the constructs called beliefs, attitudes, and values.
His interest in this area led him first to construct a model
describing the relations among belief and disbelief systems
and second to construct an instrument which would allow him
to empirically investigate his theoretical formulations.

The theory and related experiments are given in two books
(1960, 1968). The instrument he constructed and used was
the Dogmatism Scale. This instrument was used in the pre—
sent study. Its use is described in Chapter III.

The experiments Rokeach carried out were largely
aimed at exploring differences between what he called
"open" minds and ”closed" minds. The open mind is charac-
terized by the degree to which it permits information to

speak for itself. The closed mind is characterized by

L):

20

inflexibility, by the requirement that all information be
interpreted in terms of already existing beliefs.

Rokeach interpreted his findings as being consistent
with this formulation. Of interest to the present study
is the open minded person's greater ability to break sets
and come up with novel solutions to problems as well as
his ability to solve problems more quickly than the closed
minded person.

Dialectical and didactic seekers. Shulman (1963, 1965)
was interested in investigating seeking style as a determi—
nant of behavior. He posited two seeking styles, the gia-.
lectical style and the didactic style. The dialectical
seeker was said to be characterized by non-stereopathy,
high complexity, high word fluency, field independence,
high risk-taking, and a preference for discussions over lec-
tures. The didactic seeker was said to be the opposite
of the dialectical seeker in all these characteristics.

It was hypothesized that, due to their predisposing char-
acteristics, the dialectical seekers would perform better
than the didactic seekers in complex inquiry situations.

In order to test these assumptions Shulman created
the Teacher's In-Basket, an instrument which is fully
described in Chapter III. The value of the instrument is
that it gives the individual subject the same kind of
:freedom that he has in everyday life. There are few con-
straints on.his responses. He has to set the terms of his

inquiry: what he will sense as problematic, how long he

 

[In

(.;
o

21

will inquire, what will constitute a satisfactory resolu-
tion of each problem that he senses.

Shulman carried out two major studies of inquiry using
the in-basket (Shulman, 1963; Shulman at al., 1968). In
each of these studies a major focus was on seeking style
as a determinant of inquiry. In each of them results
demonstrated that dialectical seekers spend more time in
inquiry, pay attention to more of the stumulus materials,
consult more sources of information , engage in a higher
level of cognitive shifting, sense more problems, and
reach more competent solutions.

The study by Shulman gt él-: gave the initial impulse
to the present study. Quite naturally there are a number
of connections between that study and the present one.

The major similarity involves making comparisons between
dialectical and didactic inquiry styles.

This concludes the discussion of the literature per-
taining to openness. The elements of the model have been
presented, a model which focuses on common attitude char-
acteristics for training. It remains to show how one

creates the setting for changing attitudes.

Studies Related to Attitude Change

A debate of long duration centers around the problem of
how to differentiate the concept attitude from the related

concepts of opinion, belief, and value. This problem is of

 

F

.k.

1.

A.
.1 4

22

central importance in a discussion of attitude change. If
one proposes to change attitudes, he certainly ought to have
some adequate notion of what it is that is being changed.
Some authors seem to use the four concepts interchangeably.
For purposes of the present study, Rokeach's (1968) defini-
tion will be used: "An attitude is a relatively enduring
organization of beliefs around an object or situation pre-
disposing one to respond in some preferential manner

(p. 112).” Since he defines attitude in terms of beliefs,
his definition for that concept will be adopted: "A belief
is any simple proposition, conscious or unconscious, inferred
from what a person says or does, capable of being preceded
by the phrase, 'I believe that . . . ' (p. 113)."

Beyond the problem of concept definition, there is the
problem of describing the relation between attitudes and
behavior. If one is successful in changing a subject's
attitude toward an object, will this likely have any impli-
cations for the subject's behavior toward that object? On
the other hand if one is successful in changing a subject's
behavior toward an object, will this have any implications
for the subject's attitude toward that object? This is‘a
problem on which some reflections by Bettelheim (1960) shed
some light.

During World War II Bettelheim spent time as a prisoner
of the Nazis both in Dachau and Buchenwald. There he had

many opportunities to evaluate the relative effects of

environment vs. man's "true" nature as relative determinants

23

of man's behavior. He says:

Only dimly at first, but with ever greater clarity,

did I also come to see that soon how a man acts can

alter what he is. Those who stood up well in the

camps became better men, those who acted badly soon

became bad men; and this, or at least so it seemed,

independent of their past life history and their

former personality make-up, or at least those aspects

of personality that seemed significant in psycho-

analytic thinking (Bettelheim, 1960, pp. 16—17).

His conclusion was that, "psychoanalysis is by no means
the best way to change personality. Being placed in a par-
ticular type of environment can produce much more radical
changes, and in a much shorter time (ibid., p. 18).”

Thus Bettelheim seems to answer one of the above ques—
tions to the effect that, under certain conditions, by
changing a person's behavior one also changes the person's
personality. This implies a change in attitude. Some of
the literature on attitude change seems to support this
position.

The literature on attitude change is immense. Insko
(1967) has performed a valuable service for novices in
organizing it. He categorizes eleven major theoretical
positions. Then, in the interest of parsimony, he reduces
the eleven positions to two. He says, "Many of the theories
are characterized by one or both of two emphases; the impor-
tance of reward, reinforcement, or need reduction and the
importance of consistency (p. 347)."

The present study is one which is characterized by both

emphases. Since this is true, examples of both approaches

are used. Indications are given of the manner in which each

24

approach was used in the training procedure. The first
example is drawn from the literature on verbal reinforcement.

Insko (1965) wished to determine the effect of verbal
reinforcement of oral responses to subsequent responses on a
questionnaire. Assistants of the experimenter phoned all the
students in an introductory psychOIOgy course, communicating
to them opinion statements regarding the creation of a local
festival. Responses of agreement and disagreement were dif—
ferentially reinforced with the word "good". One week
later a questionnaire was administered to the subjects. This
questionnaire contained one item designed to test attitudes
toward the festival. Presumably the subjects were unaware of
any connection between the phone calls and the administration
of the questionnaire. Analysis of results showed a signifi-
cant effect as a function of the verbal reinforcement.

This technique of verbal reinforcement was used in the
training procedure in the present study. Comments which were
consistent with the model of openness were reinforced with
words like "good", nods of the head, and other signs of plea-
sure and agreement. Comments not consistent with the model
were ignored.

An example of the literature characterized by an empha-
sis on consistency is a study by Janis and Mann (1965). The
particular technique used was role-play. The attempt was
made to experimentally create a feeling of discrepancy or

inconsistency between a habit and the ill effects of the

habit. The subjects were smokers. Subjec s played the role

fih

\lh

.rv

25

of a patient. The "patient" first waited in the waiting
room. After a short wait he was brought into the doctor's
office and was informed that he had a severe case of lung
cancer, that immediate surgery was needed. Finally he was
informed that the surgery would probably be unsuccessful.
The role-play was carried out expertly enough that there
was a high degree of rearism. Subsequent behavior of the
subjects indicated that the experiment was successful in
inducing fear of cancer and a reduction in number of
cigarettes smoked.

These are two examples of the kind of research that has~
gone on in the past. They should be sufficient to indicate

the two basic approaches to attitude change.

A Synthesis of Models for Training

The models that have been presented have at least two
things in common. They posit dualistic typologies. People
are divided into two classes. These classes are said to
occur in relatively pure form only at the extremes of the
hypothetical distribution.

Another thing that the models have in common is that
they are all value laden. To be at the "high" end of any
one of the continua is "better” than to be at the "low" end.
If you are at the "high" end you are bound to be more inte-
grated, or a better inquirer, or more alert to and appreciative
of the world around you.

While the models have these things in common they also

26

differ in some ways. One of the chief differences is in
vocabulary. In each case the groups isolated at the ends

of the hypothetical continua are called by different names.
One theorist speaks of stereopaths and non—stereopaths, ano-
ther closed minds and open minds, yet another of autocentrism
-and allocentrism, a fourth of didactics and dialecticals.

The psychological orientations of the various theorists
are also different. One theorist casts his model in Freudian
terms, another in phenomenological terms, yet another in
cognitive terms.

With these differences, it might be asked whether it is
appropriate to combine the models in the typology of closed-
ness and openness as is done in this study. The answer
already given here is that it certainly is appropriate to
do so. It is assumed that the differences are more appar-
ent than real. If one looks at the crucial test, the test
of behavior, he will see that among non-stereopaths, dialec-
tical seekers, open mends, and allocentric persons, the
expected and/or actual behavior patterns are similar to one

another.

What is the message the research reviewed above has for
us? It is that people with definable underlying cognitive
and personality differences are differentially effective
while functioning in ambiguous unstructured situations.
Whether one focuses on persons trying to structure a new
belief system in order to solve a Doodlebug problem, or

freshmen trying to adapt to an unstructured college program,

27

or education majors working on an in-basket, one finds that
open people are more likely to be successful.

It has already been mentioned that one of the aims of
this study is to investigate the possibility of improving
inquiry performance through training in openness. Thus it
becomes relevant to ask to what extent openness is modifi-
able through training. This question leads to a statement
of one of the most important assumptions underlying this
study, that is, that the underlying characteristics which

predispose one to behave in an open manner are developed

largely as a function of learning. Though there may be some

genetic component, this component is not known. If then
these characteristics were learned in the first place, it
stands to reason that they can be modified through further
learning.

But, given the brief training period contemplated in
this study, someone may ask, can these characteristics be
modified sufficiently to change inquiry behavior? The
literature on learning would seem to require an answer in
the negative. Changes may occur but they would be expected
to be of small magnitude.

What then is the logic of the training experience? How
can it be expected to have any effect on inquiry behavior?
The effectiveness of the training procedure rests on the
assumption that if people are given a model such that the
behavior characteristics are clearly defined, they can, when

instructed to do so, behave in a manner consistent with the

28

model. It may be that the person behaves "out of character".
If he does behave in a non-customary way, if he can simulate
the behavior of the open person, then it is reasonable to
expect that this behavior will lead to improved inquiry
behavior. If it can be shown that a brief training experi—
ence can indeed facilitate inquiry behavior, this would have
important implications for education.

In the next chapter the design of the study, including

the training procedure, will be discussed in detail.

CHAPTER III

METHOD

Two questions of overriding interest emerged from the
study by Shulman et al. ,One was the question treated in
this study regarding the training of openness and its effects
on inquiry. The other concerned the training of general pro-
blem solving skills so that inquiry performance is improved.
This second question was dealt with in a study by Michael J.
Loupe. These two studies were conducted cooperatively to
permit both to make use of the same control group. The two
experimenters aided one another in training to avoid experi-
menter bias in training. Mutual help was also given in
observation to permit making criterion observations blind,
thus controlling for observer bias. The full extent and
kind of links between the two experiments will become more
obvious as the design is presented.

Beyond the investigation of these two major training
questions was an interest in exploring further the person-
ality dichotomy labeled dialectical-didactic. In the earlier
study by Shulman gt al,, this dichotomy had been a powerful
predictor of inquiry behavior. Thus the two themes, training
and seeking style were woven together so as to see how they

mutually affect one another.

29

30
Subjects

If the entire focus of this study had been simply in
studying the effects of openness training, subjects might
have been selected from a population at random. However,
because the further study of seeking style pg; s9 as well
as the interaction of seeking style with training were
additional areas of interest it was necessary to select
subjects who were characterized as being either dialectical
or didactic.

Sixty female students in the beginning undergraduate
level course in Educational Psychology at Michigan State
University were selected from approximately 160 females tak-
ing the screening battery. A dialectical subject was defined
as a person scoring above the median on at least three of
the four screening tests. Conversely the didactic subject
was defined as one who scored below the median on at least
three of the four tests. Since the interest was in the
selection of extreme subjects, subjects with all four tests
either above or below the median were chosen first, then
subjects having a score on one test on the opposite side of
the median were chosen. These subjects were selected on
the basis of the proximity of their deviant score from the
median. Thus the 30 most extreme in the didactic direction
and the 30 most extraie cg the dialectical direction were
selected from the 160 subjects taking the selection tests.

In selecting the 30 most extreme subjects in each

direction it was expected that there would be mostly "pure"

31

types in the sample, that is, mostly subjects whose patterns
of scores fell either all above the median or all below the
median. This expectation was far from fulfilled. By this
measure only 11 "pure” dialectical subjects were included.
Only three ”pure” didactic subjects were included.

At the time of testing all subjects were informed that
certain people would be contacted for further participation
on the basis of their test scores. They were told further
that those who agreed to participate would receive $1.50
per hour for approximately six hours of work over a seven
day period and in addition they would learn some things
relevant to teaching. Subjects were contacted by telephone
and approximately 90% agreed to participate. Those declin-
ing did so because of very heavy work and class schedules
and/or family responsibilities. All subjects were paid
$1.50 per hour and a $2.00 bonus if they kept their appoint-
ments. They were also told that their work would be valuable
only if they completed all phases of the study and thus they
would be paid only if they completed all work. All those

who began the experiment continued to completion.

Instrumentation

Selection battery. The selection battery was composed
of four instruments: (a) a Word Association Test, (b) a
Complexity Scale, (c) a Political Preference Scale, and(d)

an Inventory of Beliefs. It may be remembered that Shulman

32

23 31., used a selection battery composed of six tests
including three of the above. There were two reasons for
not using the same six tests in this study: (a) it was felt
on the basis of the earlier study that a smaller battery
would do an equally good job of identifying dialecticals

and didactics and (b) there was not enough time alloted to

 

the experimenters to administer all six tests. Since com-
plexity, non-stereopathy, and verbal fluency were known to
be highly correlated with general inquiry performance, it
was decided to use the tests of these factors. Politics was
added to the battery even though it had not been used as a
selection instrument in the earlier study. It had been
shown there that political liberalism is highly related to
effective inquiry.

A brief explanation regarding the tests used in the
selection battery may be useful. The Complexity Sgalg is
a 30-item scale that purports to measure the individual's
reactions to the ambiguous, unpredictable, and asymmetrical.
In the study by Shulman 23 al., it cOrrelated .50 with the
Inventory 2£_Beliefs and -.06 with QQT,Tgtal. These corre-
lations give an estimate of the instrument's concurrent
validity, showing it is quite closely related to another
measure of personality while it is uncorrelated with a
measure of academic aptitude.

The Word Association test is a measure of verbal flexi-

 

bility, the ability to produce many meanings for given

stimulus words. Estimates of concurrent validity are given

33

by correlations obtained in the study by Shulman gt_al.;
.45 with QQT'Tgtal, .42 with Michigan State University
Readigg, and .36 with Inventory 2: Beliefs. The measure
seems to share common variance with academic aptitude on
one hand and a measure of personality on the other.

The political preference scale gives an individual
measure of political conservatism-liberalism. The scale
used in this study contains items which are similar to the
items used by Shulman.gt,al. In that study the correlation
of politics with beliefs was .36, with complexity was .23,
and with word associations was .39.

The Inventory gcheliefs measures stereopathy-

 

nonstereopathy as discussed in Chapter II. In Shulman.§t,al.,
the correlation of beliefs with dogmatism was -.42, and with
ggg,gg£a1 was .08. Stern §£,al., report a median reliability
of .86 for the inventory. The negative correlation of
beliefs with dogmatism is appropriate since low scores on
Th2 Dogmatism §galg_indicate lesser degrees of dogmatism.

Criterion instruments. Three instruments were used as
criterion measures. They were the Dogmatism Sgalg, Loupe's
Problem Solving Eggt and the Teacher's In-Basket. Since
the Dogmatism Sgalg and the Teacher's In-Basket were both
described in Chapter II, it will only be necessary here to
describe the Problem Solving ngt.

It was Loupe's intent to develop a measure that would
assess the degree to which training in problem solving was

effective in deveIOping specific problem solving skills:

34

(a) problem sensing, (b) problem formulation, (c) hypothesis
forming and testing. He hypothesized that mastery of these
skills would result both in a wider search for information
and in more competent solutions. The test had to be such as
to allow for greater or lesser search as well as more or less
competent solutions. The Problem Solving Tagt was the result.

This test has an unusual format. It consists of a small
booklet with about 30 pages. Instructions are printed on
the front cover. The instructions lead the examinee to turn
to an inner page where the problem situation is described.
The situation turns around a jobless husband who has come to
the attention of the unemployment bureau. The examinee plays
the role of an employment counselor. He is charged with the
job of deciding how the jobless man arrived at his unfortu-
nate state and how his problem might be solved.

Once the problem situation is set, the examinee is
directed to a page which lists possible sources of information
bearing on the problem. These sources are all contained in
the booklet. The examinee is then turned free to work on
his own. He works until he feels he knows what the man's
problem is. At that point he stops and writes his solution.

Two scores are generated: (a) problem solving Pl£§.15
the number of information sources the examinee used and (b)
problem solving competence is the degree to which the

examinee reached a complete and integrated solution.

35

Experimental Design

The design of this study can hardly be discussed without
taking into account a parallel study by Michael J. Loupe.
In his study Loupe concentrated on training some of the
problem-solving cognitive and behavioral skills related to
inquiry. His study will be described briefly now in order
to give an overview of the design. The openness treatment
will be described in detail later in the chapter.

Both the experimental and theoretical literature in
the area of problem solving relate skill in inquiry to a
number of general types of behaviors. Loupe trained subjects
in some of these general skills with the aim of improving
their ability to function in the Teacher's In-Basket. The
specific skills taught were: (a) problem sensitivity, the
perception of discrepancy, imbalance, or disequilibrium
within a specified situation; (b) problem definition or for-
mulation, the careful specification of interrelationships
among bits of information in the presenting problem and the
specification of limits and conditions placed on the solution
by the problem itself; (0) hypothesis construction, the
reasoning out of a number of possible causes of the proble-
matic situation and the specification of criteria for
accepting or rejecting each hypothesis; (d) search and reso—
lution, the inspection of information related to the hypotheses
in question with the end of restoring cognitive equilibrium.

Training in these skills took place in small groups of

six to eight persons. There were three one-hour training

36

sessions plus a one-hour posttest session. The posttests
were Rokeach's Dogmatism Spalp and Loupe's Problem Solvipg
Eggp. The training was followed by administration of the
Teacher's In-Basket.

The reader will note that training in problem solving
and training in openness were identical in amount of time
spent and in numbers of training sessions held. For both
conditions the posttests were identical. The control con-
dition was also identical to the two experimental conditions

in_amount_of time spent and in numbers of training sessions

held. The posttest battery for the control condition was
slightly different in that, in addition to the Dogmatism
S3313 and Problem Solving Tppp, control gs were given a test
on concept learning as well as a rating form for rating pro-
grammed teaching. These tests were given so as to give
something related to the training, thus masking the fact
that this was a control condition.

Summarizing then,one factor in the design encompassed
three training conditions: (a) training in problem-solving,
(b) training in openness, and (c) training in concept learn-
ing. Twenty subjects were assigned to each training group.

A second factor was seeking style. As already explained,
this factor is conceived of as a continuum on which the people
at the two extremes can be characterized as dialectical or
didactic. Subjects were chosen such that the sample included
30 dialectical seekers and 30 didactic seekers.

A third factor was cueing. This factor was included

37

because it was felt that people, in spite of the fact that
they have not had specific training in problem solving and/or
openness, nevertheless have developed skill in problem solv-
ing and a conception of what it means to be open. Given that
this is true, it should be possible for people who are cued
specifically to use problem solving skills and an open Style
of behavior to perform more effectively than people who are
not so cued. One underlying assumption is of course that
some people will not use the appropriate skills nor the
openness model unless they are cued to do so. Another
involves the probability that, when the training period is
brief, it is necessary to make explicit the connection between
training and performance on the criterion task.

In the present study 30 subjects received the following
cue in their in—basket instructions: "As you work on the
in-basket, be as open as you can be and use the best problem
solving techniques you know how to use.” Thirty subjects
were not cued.

Summarizing the entire design, treatment is one factor
with three levels; cueing is a factor with two levels; seek-
ing style is a third factor with two levels. This gives a
3 X 2 X 2 design with five replications per cell. The design

is diagrammed in Table 1.

38

TABLE 1

DESIGN OF STUDY

 

 

 

    

 

 

 

 

 

 

Problem
Control Solving Openness
Training Training Training
Dialectical II
Cue 5 5 5 1
1
No Cue, 5 5 5
Analysis

Data were analyzed by analysis of variance. Planned
comparisons were made. The comparisons of greatest interest
were: (a) problem solving treatment vs. control treatment,
(b) openness treatment vs. control treatment, (0) cued
treatment vs. non-cued treatment, and (d) dialecticals vs.

didactiCS.

Openness Training Procedure

It has already been stated that the objective of the
training was not to make basic changes in the personality or
cognitive structure of the learner. It was rather to teach

him the behavior characteristics of the open person so that

39

he could emulate the open person when asked to do so.

It was felt that the training procedure might more
likely achieve its objective if there were someone in each
training group who could play the role of the open person,
modeling in her behavior the qualities that were being dis-
‘cussed. Such a person was found in the Department of Theater.
Fortunately, it was not necessary for her to "play the role"
of an open person since she was, by all the standards set
up here, an open person. She formed a part of every openness
training group, participating as any group member, feeding
into the discussion whatever she felt to be appropriate.

She had no set things to say or do. Naturally, other group
members were not told of her special role in the experiment.
The specific activities for openness training will now be
described.

First day. Subjects were introduced to one another.
Following these amenities the topic of openness was intro-
duced by the group leader. The focus of this introduction
was on the importance of teacher openness in facilitation
learning. The group was given a written statement of the
training objectives.

It was then stated that the group members probably did
not know exactly what was meant by openness but that they
probably knew something. The statement was as follows:

You may be asking what is meant by openness. I am

‘sure that you already know more about it than you
think. Let us spend a few minutes seeing how much
information about openness we can generate from our

own experiences. We have almost certainly met some-
one in our lifetime whom we considered to be open or

40

open-minded. Think back now about such a person
that you have met... Ask yourself what there was
about his behavior that caused you to think of him
as open. What did he typically do? Say? How did
he relate to other people? to himself? to things?
As each of you shares his experience, the rest of
us will note down the most important points that
come out of the discussion. We will pool these
notes later in a summary of the discussion.
Following his statement, contributions were elicited
from each group member. 'After all had participated the
important points were summarized on the chalk board. In

this way the training was able to begin by building on what
was already known.

The next stage consisted of giving the learners an
explicit model of openness as it is developed in Chapter I.
For this purpose a biographical sketch of a hypothetical
open undergraduate named Paul was written. In writing it
an effort was made to include the entire Stern, Stein &
Bloom model, doing it in such a way as to maximize interest,
readability and fidelity. A copy is included in Appendix C.
It was introduced with the following words:

Many people have thought deeply about what it means

to be open. In a minute I am going to give you a

selection by an undergraduate written about his

roommate, Paul, a fellow he considered to be extremvly
open. As you read I would like you to underline those
things about Paul which you think were particularly
indicative of openness. Any new ideas you come up
with we will add to our model. Here is the selection.

Go ahead and read. Be sure to underline as you go.

Time was then permitted for reading. As soon as all
were finished, discussion was opened again and each learner
was requested to state something about what he had underlined.
Contributions were added to the model already begun on the

chalk board.

41

It was now time to summarize the model. A summary had
been prepared in written form and was handed out at this time.
The summary is found in Appendix C. Time was given for read-
ing. When all had finished, the time and place for the next
meeting was announced and the group was dismissed.

Second day. The meeting opened with the experimenter
summarizing the work of the previous day. The written summary
of the openness model was recalled in its broad emphases.
Learners were asked if they found the model to be a satisfac-
tory statement. Would they like to add or delete anything?

Following this review, the application phase began.
Learners were told that they would be given cards which set
up specific situations. Each situation was problematic in
that it required that the person in question make some
response. The response that ought to be made was not defined
by the situation. Learners were asked to respond as they
felt the open person would respond, that is, the open person
as defined in the model developed during the first session.
Following this explanation, the situation cards were passed
out, one to each group member. Each card set up a different
situation. A brief time was given to think about the situ-
ations. Then, one by one, group members were asked to state
what they would do if they were in fact open. All state-
ments were discussed and evaluated in terms of the model.
Contributions made by the planted role player at this point
were especially useful in shaping responses in the direction

of the model.

42

After each person had a chance to deal with his situation
card, the Inventory of Beliefs was administered. The follow-
ing set was given:

I believe from our discussion that we have in fact
gotten well acquainted with the model of openness.
The solutions you have proposed to the situations
show that you can apply the model. You can act
openly if you decide to do so. Now comes the cru-
cial test. How do you do in comparison with people
who are uniformly judged to be open? In the first
phase of this experiment you responded to the
Inventory of Beliefs, an instrument which is intended
to measure openness along the lines of the model we
have developed. You were asked at that time to
respond for yourself---to represent yourself as
honestly as you could. I would like for you to
respond to the inventory again. This time, however,
aHEWer the Way you think an open person would
answer. I will later compare your responses

with the norms fer open persons. See how close

you can come to them. Make use of the model we
have developed. Hopefully, you will be able to
change your original score in the direction of
openness. This will show that you have success-
fully comprehended the model. I will give you
individual feedback in the next group session

about how well you did. Individual scores will

not be revealed or discussed openly in the ses-
sion. If you wish an individual session to

discuss your score, that can be arranged.

With this explanation, inventories and answer sheets were
handed out. As soon as learners had finished they were excused
to go.

Third day. Before the third session convened, the inven—
tory responses for the second administration were scored.
Responses for first administration and second administration
were compared. Changes in the direction of openness and changes
in the direction of closedness were recorded. A written sum-
mary of each individual's performance for first and second

administrations was prepared.

43

With this work done all was ready for Session Three.
The experimenter arrived at the meeting-place early and
prepared a display of score information on the Inventory pf
Beliefs for 224 undergraduate students. This information
was gathered during the selection phase of this study. The

display was as follows:

 
   

Closed

 

With this information on the chalk board, the arrival of the
group members was awaited.

On their arrival, the learners were given an interpreta-
tion of the display emphasizing that by definition open
people are those who score one standard deviation or more
above the mean. They were then told the means of their own
small training group for administrations one and two. These
two means were superimposed on the distribution for the 224
original students. The means for each of the three training
groups for first and second administrations are given in
Table 2 .

This was considered sufficient background for the
learners to receive and interpret feedback on their indivi-

dual performances. The individual summaries which had been

44

prepared earlier were now handed out. Learners were per-
mitted time to read them and make comparisons with the score

distribution on the board.

TABLE 2

MEANS OF THREE OPENNESS TRAINING GROUPS FOR FIRST AND
SECOND ADMINISTRATIONS OF THE INVENTORY OF BELIEFS (N=20)

 

 

 

 

First Second
Administration Administration
X X

First group 56.33 69.83
N:

Second group 61.71 69-43

Third group 63.57 68.86
N=7

 

A brief history of the development of the Inventory pf
Beliefs was now presented. This presentation emphasized the
empirical nature of the keying of the items. It also empha-
sized the behavioral differences between the open people and
the closed people identified by the instrument. It was
shown how people who score high on the inventory behave in
a manner consistent with the model developed during the first
session.

In order to make maximum use of the inventory certain
items were selected for careful scrutiny in the group. The
items selected were among those where half or less of the

original 224 students agreed with the keying. Learners were

45

asked to try to hypothesize why the inventory authors keyed
the items in this way. Why would the open person be expected
to respond in one way when a majority of people respond in
the other way? Once again opportunity was taken to apply the
model.

Finally, in one last attempt to focus the model, printed
statements from Stern et al., from Rogers and from Rokeach
were handed out and read. These selections were considered
to summarize important elements of the model in concise form.

The last thing to be done was to set up appointments
for in-basket sessions and confirm arrangements for post
testing.

Fourth day. This was the posttest session. It was given

 

over to the administration of two instruments, Rokeach's
Dogmatism Scale and Loupe's Problem Solving Test.
Teacher's In-Basket. The Teacher's In-Basket was admin-

istered to all subjects within a week of the posttest session.

Problem Solvinngraining Procedure

Problem solving training was identical to openness train-
ing in terms of numbers of sessions and total time spent.
There were three training sessions, each designed to develop
skill in problem sensing, problem formulation, hypothesis
formation, and hypothesis testing. The training materials
largely turned around detective—type plots.

A fourth session was given over to testing. The subjects

were given Loupe's Problem Solving Test and Rokeach's Dogmatism

aha-

Fc

46

§p§l§, Within a week the Teacher's In-Basket was administered
to them.

The interested reader should consult the dissertation by
Michael J. Loupe (1969) for further details on the problem

solving training procedure.

Control Training Procedure

The control curriculum consisted of a unit of work on
concept learning taken from School Learning by Stephen L. Yelon
(1969). This unit was developed using a systems approach.
Instructional objectives were stated in operational terms.

The materials were printed in program format. Steps between
frames were small in size. There were activities built into

the task. Learners had to) pay attention in order to be able

to do them. Feedback on responses came both from text materials
and the instructor.

The materials were introduced to the group in the following
way:

You remember when we first told you about this experiment
that our purpose was to study the relationship between
cognitive style and various approaches to teacher educa-
tion. In this particular group the approach we wish to
use is what we call programmed teaching. The content of
the program we will use deals with concept learning.
Other groups in the experiment are studying the same
topic using different approaches. At the end of the

unit of work you will be given a test over the materials.
We will be interested in using the results of this test
to see which approach was more effective in helping peo-
ple to master concept learning. In addition to the test
you will be given a rating form which will give you an
opportunity to tell how you liked this style of teaching.
We will score these rating forms and then correlate them
with scores on the pretests in order to see if there is
any relation between cognitive style and liking for
programmed teachingn,

47

This explanation was, of course, a misrepresentation of
the nature of the experiment. With one possible exception,
there is no reason to believe that SS in these groups sus-
pected that they were in fact control subjects.

The content of the program included:

. an introduction to concepts,

. the processes of generalization and discrimination
in concept learning,

concept learning as a special case of transfer of
training,

. suggestions on the teaching of concepts,

. factors in concept learning.

kit-PUD NH
O

The length of the program was identical to the length of
the openness training program, three one-hour learning ses—
sions and a one-hour posttest session.

Posttest. The fourth session was given over to the
administration of tests. The test battery consisted of (a)

a test on concept learning, (b) a form for rating liking
for programmed teaching, (0) a problem solving test developed
by Michael J. Loupe, and (d) Rokeach's Dggmatism Spalp,

Teacher's In-Basket. The Teacher's In-Basket was
administered to all subjects within a week of the posttest

session.

The Teacher's In—Basket

The Teacher's In-Basket has already been described in
some detail in Chapter II. Thus it will be necessary here
only to outline some of its salient characteristics and the
manner of its administration.

The in—basket consists of a number of different materials

48

such as are available to the average elementary school teacher
in his classroom or in the school office. These materials
include (a) report cards for each child in the class giving
information on academic performance, depcrtment, age, height
and weight; (b) cardexes for each child giving family infor-
mation, achievement test°scores, and intelligence testing
information; (c) anecdotal records and discipline report slips
for selected children written by former teachers; (d) current
attendance book giving a record of absences and tardiness;
(e) cumulative records giving attendance, achievement, intel-
ligence, and family information for each child since his
entrance into the system plus special information from nurses,
therapists, psychometrists and others that had been gathered
over time; (f) medical folders giving a health history for
each child since his entrance into the system including a
record of immunizations, operations, check-ups and their results,
and other pertinent information.

The in-basket itself contains varied sources of informa-
tion including a complete record of personality testing, a
sociogram, memos from administrative personnel, letters from
parents, a phone memo, a class schedule, a community descrip-
tion and map. Finally there is an intercom connecting the
subject with the school office by which she could speak with
the school secretary, the principal or reference memory.
Reference memory is a device to give the subject access to
information such as teacher's room scuttlebutt and such other

information as the teacher would have if she had been around

49

the school for a few weeks.

This summarizes the in-basket materials. Let us turn now
to its administration. The experimenter accompanies the sub—
ject to a small room in order to explain the experimental
situation to her. The room contains a table and two chairs.
The table serves as the teacher's desk. One chair is obvi-
ously for the subject; over the back of it a microphone is
hanging. The other is the repository for the cumulative
records and medical records. On the table is the intercom
unit, the in-basket with its contents, plus a folder contain—
ing the report cards, the cardexes, the attendance book, the
anecdotal records and discipline report slips. There is also
a blank note pad and a pencil in case the subject wishes to
make notes of anything. The walls are bare except for one
where there is a large one-way viewing mirror behind which
the Observer sits.

When the subject and experimenter first enter the room,
S is invited to sit at the desk and put a microphone on. She
is informed that she is now in Room 103 of Ridge Forest School
and that she is the teacher in this room. She is told that
the success of the experiment depends on making her thoughts
audible. She is to talk aloud about the things she is think-
ing. In order to help her get into the habit she is given
some training in talking aloud. One by one, she is given
three line drawings about which she is to create and tell
aloud a story, one that has a beginning, a middle, and an

ending. After she finishes she is told that this is exactly

50

what she is to do all the time, keep on talking aloud. She
is then given written instructions for the in-basket perfor-
mance. These she reads aloud. Next she is given a list of
materials and resources available to her as she does her work.
As she goes over the items on the list, a sample of each is
shown to her for examination. She is then instructed in the
use of the intercom for contacting reference memory. Here
attention is now directed to the community description and
map on top of the in-basket materials. She is invited to
read them if she wishes. Finally, if she is cued, she is
told just before the experimenter leaves the room, "There is
just one last thing I would like to tell you. As you work

on the in-basket, be as open as you can be and use the best
problem solving techniques you know how to use. Remember to
keep talking aloud all the time." If she is a non-cued sub-
ject she is told simply, "Remember to keep talking aloud all
the time." With this the experimenter leaves the room and
takes his place behind the one-way glass where he records on
magnetic tape the things that S says and does.

This procedure is very analogous to the method used in
the study by Shulman §p_a;,, (1968). The major differences
are two in number. First, in the earlier study there were
two observers, one engaged in writing a log of the subject's
activities and the other handling several jobs: (a) serving
as reference memory, secretary, and principal; (b) operating
the printer-counter; (c) delivering cumulative folders and

medical records when S requested them. In the present study

51

there was only one observer to do the job that had previously
been done by two. Hence certain of the earlier procedures
were changed. One major change came in the recording of S
activities in the logs. Whereas previously the logs had

been written out in longhand, they were now recorded on mag-
netic tape and later typed from the recording. This change
had two beneficial results. First, since one can talk faster
than he can write, enough time was saved to allow the observer
to take over the jobs which had been done earlier by a second
observer. Second, the recorded logs were more complete than
the logs written out by hand.

One job that had previously been done by the second
observer was dropped entirely. That was the job of delivering
cumulative record folders and medical records to S on request.
This would have resulted in the single observer failing to
observe too many events. It was therefore decided to leave
the cumulative records and the medical records in the room
with S but to impose certain constraints on their use. These
constraints were designed with the purpose of getting Ss to
use these materials in a way analogous to the way they had
been used in the first study. The instructions were: "The
chair in front of you is the guidance office where permanent
records are kept. If you come upon a problem which you would
like to investigate in greater depth and you wish to consult
the cumulative records or medical records you may leave your
desk and go over to the guidance office to get what you want.

You are restricted in your use of these materials in only one

52

sense; you may not get more than one cumulative folder and
one medical report at a time.”

This was the second major change in procedure. It was
felt that this did not significantly change the manner and
frequency with which the present Ss used these materials as
compared with the way earlier Ss had used them. However, the
presence or absence of differences in use was not explicitly

studied.

Control for Bias

It was anticipated that bias could creep into the experi-
ment in several ways (see Rosenthal, 1966). In one case
there might be an experimenter bias in the training itself
if S was the only one to conduct the training groups. Since
the intent of the experiment was to evaluate the effect of
training qua training, it was decided to have at least one
other person share the responsibility of training the open-
ness groups. Loupe trained two problem solving groups, one
openness group, and one control group; S trained the rest.

Another possible source of bias was observer bias. It
was feared that if the observer knew ahead of time the cogni-
tive characteristics of the subject he was observing, or if
he knew the training the subject had undergone, bias favoring
the hypotheses would unintentionally creep into the observa-
tions. In order to avoid this, a third person not involved
in the training kept the records on the subjects and made

observer assignments such that the observer (a) was unaware

53

of the cognitive characteristics of the subjects he observed
and (b) was not involved in their training.

One source of bias was deliberately built into the design,
namely, selection bias. Subjects were selected to conform to
a particular pattern of cognitive and personality character-
istics as outlined earlier in this chapter. For this reason,
generalizability of the results is restricted to populations
like the one represented in the sample. Other known sources

of bias are controlled for in the design itself.

Dependent Variables

It has already been mentioned that criterion measures
were obtained through use of Rokeach's Dogmatism Spaig and
Shulman's Teacher's In-Basket. The Dogmatism §22$2 was used
to assess the degree to which the variable "openness" had
been manipulated within the training program itself. The
Teacher's In-Basket was used to measure the effects of open-
ness training as transferred to inquiry behavior. It is this
latter relation which was of primary interest. It would
therefore be appropriate to discuss its measurement in greater
detail.

Inquiry as described by Dewey is a complex skill. It is
made up of at least four distinct yet interlocking processes.
Since it is complex, it could not reasonably be measured by
any simple unitary measure. Complex criterion behaviors ought
to be assessed using a variety of measures (Bracht and Glass,

1969). The value of the Teacher's In-Basket is that it yields

54

a number of measures of inquiry including plpp processed,
solution competence, 2223 competence, general inguiry, and
others. The nature of these criterion measures will be
discussed.

Problem sensitivity can be described as sensitivity to
the discrepancies that occur in one's encounters with people,
events and objects in one's environment. Discrepancies can
occur between two external events or between an event and
one's expectations for that event. In either case, violation
of an expectancy is involved. An illustration may be useful
here. Let us suppose that one is investigating the possibility
of assigning some students to an enrichment program. At the
moment we are concerned with, say, David Barrow. We are look-
ing at a current record card and we note that David's IQ is
104. His achievement is just at grade level. The recorded
IQ and achievement are congruent as far as our expectations
go. Now we consult his cumulative record and find that here
David's recorded IQ for the same test on the same date is 140.
Consistent with the record card, achievement is average.

This state of affairs involves two kinds of discrepancy, a
discrepancy between two external events and a discrepancy
between an external event and an expectation. As an example
of the former case we have differing scores for the same event
recorded in two different information sources. This violates
the expectancy that one will find equality among all recorded
values of an objective event. As an example of the latter

case, we have a discrepancy between expected achievement

55

(superior) and actual achievement (average). This violates
the expectancy that someone with a superior IQ will demon—
strate superior achievement.

It would be useful for purposes of analysis to distin-
guish between a potential problem and a sensed problem. A
potential problem exists wherever an event violates well-known,
consensually-shared expectations. A sensed problem occurs
when a potential problem is sensed as being problematic, that
is, when a peréon actually becomes aware of a discrepancy.

The Teacher's In-Basket makes use of this distinction.
The authors of the instrument have built in more than 300
potentially problematic events. When an experimental subject
comes across one of these events and recognizes it as involving
some discrepancy, he is given credit for having sensed a pro—
blem. His problem sensitivity score is the total number of
potential problems he recognizes as being problematic.

Another score generated from in-basket performance is
called information sources. This is the number of sources
consulted in the solution of specified problems. The study
by Shulman et al., demonstrated that people vary in the degree
to which they consult a variety of sources before proposing a
solution. At one extreme are people who take the barest
amount of information and jump to a conclusion. At the other
extreme are those who consult many sources of information
before giving a solution. Using the example of David Barrow,
the former approach might be demonstrated by the person who

hypothesizes, without further search, that since average

56

achievement and an IQ of 104 are congruent, the IQ of 140
given in the cumulative record is just a transposition error.
Therefore David should not receive enrichment.

An example of the latter approach would be the person who,
in addition to the above hypothesis, makes an additional one,
namely that the IQ of 140 might be correct and that David is
a very dramatic case of underachievement. Since the discre-
pancy between these two alternative hypotheses cannot be
resolved using only the given materials, this person looks in
other sources for evidence bearing on ppph hypotheses.

An assumption made in this study is that the effective
inquirer juxtaposes many sources of information in an effort
to resolve sensed problems. The information sources score
gives an approximation of this behavior.

It was observed in the earlier study that some subjects
were extremely thorough in investigating some problem areas
while they completely ignored others. Their use of sources
was extremely effective for the limited number of problems
they attempted. The total sources score did not indicate
their full effectiveness since it was generated over all
possible problem areas. To compensate for this the BEBE
sources score was developed. This is the mean number of
sources consulted within those problems actually dealt with.

Tlpg is also a variable in the Teacher's In-Basket. It
is assumed that people differ in their willingness to remain
in situations which involve ambiguity and lack of definition.

This assumption follows rathernatunflly ffiwmlthe theorizing

57

of Schachtel. The in-basket presents the subject with exactly
this kind of situation. He is placed in a role-play situation
and asked to do whatever he would do if this were a real situ—
ation and he were in fact the teacher. Those who have admin-
istered in-baskets can testify to the tenacity with which some
subjects attempt to wring from the experimenter some more
specific definition of the task.

In addition to this initial lack of definition of task
behavior, the materials themselves involve ambiguity. There
are many embedded potential problems which cannot be solved
definitively with the materials given. This causes distress
for those who seek quick closure and determinative answers.

These characteristics of the in—basket are included
intentionally SOLaSItO measure the subject's degree of willing-
ness to stay in the situation despite its ambiguity. Tlpg
spent is used as an approximate measure of this willingness.

Another measure of inquiry competence is plpp. Theo-
retically the more effective inquirer will be more active in
his search for information. This higher level activity will
be reflected in the sheer number of pieces of material that he
looks at and to which he actively responds. The information
sources score does not reflect this behavior since use of a
source within a problem is scored only once for that problem.
A bits score does. If a person consults a particular source
three times within a given problem, this is scored as three

bits.

Another score generated from in-basket behavior is

58

competence. The more effective inquirer is assumed to reach
solutions which make use of more information and which con-
sequently specify the manner in which discrepant elements can
more nearly be brought into harmony. Such solutions are
judged to be more competent and therefore to reflect a deeper
understanding of the problem. In the present study competence
was judged on the basis of performance in ten selected problem
areas. The standard against which performance was judged was
formed on the basis of Ss' judgments about what in each case
constituted a competent solution. The standard used is given
in Appendix . The competence score is the sum of competence
for all the defined problem areas.

For the same reasons that a mean sources score was gen-
erated a mean competence score was generated. This score is
designed to give a more accurate measure of competence for
those subjects who worked on less than the full number of
defined problem areas. The score is generated by dividing
the competence score by the number of problem areas actually
dealt with.

The theory of inquiry on which this study is based states
that competence in inquiry depends on having adequate infor-
mation both for problem formulation and for problem resolution.
This can only be gotten by looking in many places for infor-
mation, by juxtaposing information from more than one source.
Shulman et al., (1968) called such behavior cognitive shifting.
The degree to which in-basket subjects actually behaved this

way is given by the shifts score. This score is the sum of

59

the times a subject moved from one source of information to
another.

Finally, it was desirable to have some overall measure
of inquiry performance. This was given by a score called
general inquiry. To get this score problem sensitivity,
competence, and sources were converted to T scores
[TVVN’(50,100)] and summed. Thus general inquiry is a linear

combination of three inquiry sub-scores.

Statistical Hypotheses

1. The dialectical group will be superior to the
didactic group in all aspects of inquiry as defined
by the following inquiry variables: bits, time,
total sources, mean sources, shifts, problem sen-
sitivity, competence, mean competence, and general
inquiry.

This hypothesis is suggested by the theory of openness
underlying this study. The open person is by definition
dialectical. He surpasses the didactic in his interest in
people and in environmental events. He is more accepting of
ambiguity. He is less likely to distort information inputs.
These qualities are all expected to facilitate performance
in the in-basket.

2. The openness training group will be superior to
the control group in all aspects of inquiry as
defined by the following inquiry variables:
problem sensitivity, competence, mean competence,
bits, time, total sources, mean sources, shifts,
and general inquiry.

The logic of this hypothesis rests on the assumption

that the openness training will establish a set which will

carry over into the in-basket situation. This set is designed

60

to facilitate in-basket performance.

3. The cued group will be superior to the uncued
group in all aspects of inquiry as defined by
the following inquiry variables: bits, time,
total sources, mean sources, shifts, problem
sensitivity, competence, mean competence and
general inquiry.

Presumably the meaning of openness is not entirely
unknown even to untrained subjects. Thus whether trained or
untrained, it is expected that people who are asked to behave
openly will do so to the fullest extent of their understanding
of the model. To the degree that they can and will do this,
inquiry performance will be improved.

The above hypotheses state that there will be signifi-
cant main effects for the three factors being manipulated
and/or controlled in this experiment. Following are certain
other hypotheses regarding expected interactions.

4. The cued openness training group will be superior

to the uncued Openness training group on all
aspects of inquiry.

The assumption underlying this hypothesis is that cueing
has an effect over and above the set provided by the training
itself. This additional effect is assumed to be identical to
the effect observed in studies of achievement motivation
where behavior is changed as a result of presenting S with
some standard of excellence. In the present study that stan—
dard of excellence is the model of openness studied in the

training sessions.

5. Didactic subjects will benefit more from openness
training than will dialectical subjects.

61

The underlying assumption is that dialectical subjects
are already open and cannot therefore benefit from openness
training to the degree that didactics will benefit. They
will perform well in the inquiry situation with or without
training. The didactics, since they are closed by definition,
will be expected to use the openness training in such a way
as to improve their inquiry performance over what it would

have been had they not been exposed to the training.

Summary

The present study on the training of openness and its
effects on inquiry was paralled by another on the training
of problem—solving skills and its effects on inquiry. Sub-
jects for both studies were selected on the basis of their
cognitive style, either dialectical or didactic. The two
studies used an identical criterion task, the Teacher's
In-Basket. They also used the same control group. The con-
trol group received training that was conceptually unrelated
to improvement of inquiry. All training groups were equated
for cognitive style of subjects, for amount of time spent
and for number of sessions held. During the administration
of the Teacher's In-Basket half the Ss were cued to use the
training: half were uncued. Both training procedures and
the criterion observations were carried out in such a way as
to minimize experimenter bias. The data were analyzed using

correlation and analysis of variance.

62

In the next chapter the results relating to the above
hypotheses will be presented. These results will be dis-

cussed in the following chapter.

CHAPTER IV

RESULTS

Data were gathered in three stages and in each case for
a different purpose. The first data were gathered in order
to be able to select subjects along the dialectical—didactic
continuum. Next, post-training data were gathered in order
to assess the effect of the experimental treatment. Finally,
data relevant to the hypotheses were gathered in the inquiry
sessions. Since these three sets of data correspond to
three distinct phases in the research and since they corre-
spond to different, though related questions, they will be

presented in three sections.

The Selection Battegy

One of the major interests of this study was in investi-
gating the differential effects of training on dialectical
and didactic seekers. A procedure was designed to select
‘ two groups of subjects who would differ as much as possible
on the dialectical-didactic continuum. Four measures were
taken: (a) a measure of stereopathy-nonstereopathy, (b) a
measure of cognitive complexity (c) a measure of political
liberalism-conservatism, and (d) a measure of word fluency.

These high on all these measures were called dialectical

63

64

seekers. Those who were low on all of them were called
didactic seekers. The degree to which separation of groups

was actually achieved can be seen by an examination of

 

 

 

 

Table 3 .
TABLE 3
MEANS FOR SEEKING STYLE VARIABLES
CLASSIFIED BY TRAINING GROUPS
Variable Control Problem Openness
Group Solving Training
(N=20) Group (N;20
(N=202
X X X
Beliefs Dialectical 68.4 66.9 68.7
(SD=10.69) Didactic 54.1 49.1 53.0
Complexity Dialectical 19.1 16.9 21.4
(SD=5.43) Didactic 11.9 11.1 12.7
Politics Dialectical 13.9 14.6 15.9
(SD=3.43) Didactic 11.2 10.7 11.4
Word Dialectical 124.0 115.7 119.3
Association
(SD=16.22) Didactic 98.9 106.9 97.3

 

Observe that with the exception of the control group on
Politics and the Problem Solving group on Word Association,

the means for dialectical vs. didactic seekers are always at

65

least one standard deviation apart. Overall differences
between didactic and dialectical seekers compare favorably
with those achieved by Shulman pp al., (1968) as can be seen

in Table 4.

TABLE 4

MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS FOR SELECTED
VARIABLES FROM TWO STUDIES OF INQUIRY

 

 

 

Shulman, Loupe, & Piper Present Study
Dialecticals Didactics Dialecticals Didactics

N=21 N=25 N=30 N=30

Inventory X 65.57 54.72 68.06 52.07

of SD 7.20 7.8 7.71 6.47
Beliefs

Complexity X 16.09 8.28 19.13 11.90

SD 4.22 2.25 4.24 3.85

CQT x 133.76 123.96 131.60 127.63

Total SD 17.81 25.75 24.85 18.60

GPA x 2.68 2.61 2.68 2.55

SD 0&8 053 056 '51

 

Means and standard deviations for prg Associations and
Politics do not appear in the table since these measures
were not exactly comparable across studies. In the case of
prg Associations the instrument was identical but the scor-
ing procedure was slightly changed. In the case of Politics
the scales in the two studies were different. Referring,
then, only to beliefs and to complexity, it seems that in
selecting on seeking style the results for the two studies

were quite similar.

66

In Table 5 the intercorrelations among the four seek-
ing style variables are given. Correlations in parentheses
are those for the same variables in Shulman gp_al., (1968).
Note that these correlations are in the same direction but

are somewhat larger than those from the earlier study.

‘ TABLE 5

MATRIX OF INTERCORRELATIONS AMONG
SEEKING STYLE VARIABLES (N=6O)a

 

 

Beliefs 1 1.00
Complexity 2 .62 (.50)b 1.00
Politics 3 .58 (.36) .29 (.23) 1.00
Word 4 .37 (.36) .36 (.29) .20 (.39) 1.00
Association
1 2 3 4
Beliefs Complexity Politics Word
Association

 

aFor N=60, a correlation of .21 or more will occur by chance
5% of the time; a correlation of .30 or more will occur 1%
of the time (two-tailed test).

bCorrelations in parentheses from Shulman pp al., (1968).

The Training Posttests

For all three training groups the post—training test
battery consisted of Rokeach's Dggmatism Scale and Loupe's
Problem Solving Tppp. In addition the control group received
a test on concept learning. This last test was administered

only to support the illusion communicated to the control group

 

67

that it was in fact an experimental group. The test was not
scored.
The means and standard deviations for both the Dogmatism

Scale and the Problem Solving Test are given in Table 6.

TABLE 6

MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS
FOR POSTTEST VARIABLES

 

 

Dogmatism Scale

 

N 2 SD
Training Control 20 128.50 33-83
Problem Solving 20 131.00 24.64
Openness 20 119.85 22.33
Seeking Style Dialectical 30 115.1 28.3
Didactic 30 137.7 21.4
Problem Solving Test
Steps _
N X SD
Training Control 20 9.25 5.30
Problem Solving 20 8.90 3.82
Openness 20 9.70 5.23
Seeking Style Dialectical 30 9.83 5.61
Didactic 30 8.73 3.74
Quality
N 3? so
Training Control 20 3.45 1.43
Problem Solving 20 4.45 1.67
Openness 20 4.20 2.61
Seeking Style Dialectical 30 4.47 2.27
Didactic 30 3.60 1.57

 

68

In the case of both tests, the only comparisons of interest
involve the training dimension and the seeking style
dimension.

Restricting our attention for the moment to the Spgpa—
pipp_Spalg, it may be noted that in terms of absolute
value the mean for the openness group is less than that for
the control group. Thisdifference was in the expected
direction. However, an analysis of variance revealed that
the difference was not significant (F=.99, p‘<.38). The
difference between the dialectical seekers and didactic
seekers was significant (F=11.12, p.<.002). The appropriate
ANOVA tables are found in Appendix D.

Clearly there was no overall effect of openness train-
ing in producing less dogmatic people. In spite of that
there were two facts that suggested the presence of a pos-
sible weak effect. First, as noted above, the mean differ-
ence between openness and control groups was in the pre-
dicted direction and second, the SD for the openness group
was two-thirds that of the control group. Both of these
results were consistent with the expected effects of train-
ing. It was therefore decided to attempt a more fine—grained
analysis. This analysis would be aimed at discovering
whether or not the training had been effective for at least
some of those who had experience in openness training. It
was expected it would especially help the didactics.

At the time of the administration of the selection

battery, the Inventory 93 Beliefs had been administered to

69

all subjects. At that time they had been asked to respond
to the inventory so as to represent their own feelings. On
the second day of openness training, subjects had again been
asked to respond to the inventory. This time, however, they
were asked to respond as they felt an open person would.
Changes in score, they were told, would represent the degree
to which they had comprehended the model of openness which
had been presented to them.

With these two inventory measures in hand it was
decided to calculate a change score by subtracting the
first score from the second. These change scores were then
plotted against scores on the Dogmatism Scale. The plot
revealed very clearly that for didactic subjects only, there
was a negative relation between degree of change and degree
of dogmatism. The more they changed in the direction of
openness on the Inventory 9: Beliefs, the less dogmatic
they became. A Pearson Product-Moment correlation coef-
ficient was computed to measure the strength of the relation.
The correlation was -.55. For N=10 this correlation is
significant (p<:.05, two-tailed test).

Turning to the posttest differences between the two
selection groups, the mean difference in dogmatism tended
to confirm the supposition that was made in using the ngpa-
pl§p_Spalg as a posttest, namely, that the construct
openmindedness-closedmindedness is closely related to the
other dichotomies which make up the model of openness-

closedness. The degree of correlation between dogmatism

70

and the variables which define the dimension of dialecticism-

didacticism tend to support this also. Those correlations

are given in Table 7.

TABLE 7

CORRELATION 0F DOGMATISM WITH
SEEKING STYLE VARIABLES (N=60)a

 

 

 

 

Seeking Style Variables Dogmatism
Inventory of Beliefs -.59
Complexity -.29
Word Association -.00

 

aFor N=60, a correlation of .21 or more will occur by chance
5% of the time; a correlation of .30 or more will occur 1%
of the time (two-tailed test).

The fact that the correlations are negative is appro-
priate since low scores on the Dogmatism Scale indicate a
less dogmatic stance. In other words, lower scores on the
scale are associated with higher scores on the seeking style
variables.

Turning now to results of the Problem Solving EEEE
one can see by inspecting the means in Table 6 that for
both ppppp and quality the openness training group was
higher than the training group. These differences were in
the expected direction. An analysis of variance revealed

that the differences were not significant, however.

71
Examining the means on problem solving for the seeking
style dimension it is seen that for both Spppp_and quality
the differences are small. As would be expected, the
differences favor the dialectical seekers. In neither case

was the difference significant.

Results Relating to Inquiry

The first hypothesis states that the dialectical group
will be superior to the didactic group in all aspects of
inquiry. The means and standard deviations relating to this
hypothesis are given in Table 8. Despite the fact that all
mean scores (with few exceptions) are in the predicted
direction, analysis of variance revealed that there were no

significant differences.

TABLE 8

MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS FOR INQUIRY
VARIABLES CLASSIFIED BY SEEKING STYLE

 

 

 

 

 

 

Variables Dialectical Seekers Didactic Seekers

X SD X SD
Bits 189.87 52.14 183.23 50.27
Time 133.07 35.92 125.63 27.15
Total Sources 57.40 13.21 54.63 11.24
Mean Sources 5.84 1.24 5.70 1.11
Shifts 129.60 53.71 129.10 44.89
Problem Sensitivity 78.10 16.35 76.10 17.37
Competence 26.33 3.04 26.03 4.21
Mean Competence 2.78 .32 2.79 .36
General Inquiry 152.20 24.23 147.97 25.97
Bits/Time 1.49 .34 1.48 .34
Shifts/Time .99 .30 1.04 .33
Problems/Time .62 .15 .62 .16

 

t}..-

wosv

Ell:

tic

72

Note that on Table 6 three variables have been included
that were not previously mentioned. These were created post
hoc to aid in analysis. They were created by using existing
defined scores, bits, shifts, and problem sensitivity;
dividing these scores by the amount of time spent in inquiry,
thus giving a reading of the number of bits processed,
number of shifts, and number of problems sensed per unit of
time (the unit being one minute).

The second hypothesis states that the openness train—
ing group will be superior to the control training group
in all aspects of inquiry. The appropriate means and

standard deviations are given in Table 9.

TABLE 9

MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS FOR INQUIRY
VARIABLES CLASSIFIED BY TRAINING

 

 

 

 

Variables Openness Training Control Training
X SD 7 SD
Bits 202.10 54.61 170.90 46.40
Time 139.70 37.91 119.10 29.37
Total Sources 55.90 11.80 53.40 12.29
Mean Sources 5.44 1.11 5.61 1.22
Shifts 137.70 54.23 113.30 42.04
Problem Sensitivity 77.20 19.19 75.50 16.61
Competence 26.70 3.97 25.50 3.36
Mean Competence 2.71 .39 2.75 .26
General Inquiry 151.50 28.33 144.90 24.91
Bits/Time 1.52 .31 1.47 .33
Shifts/Time 1.02 .30 .95 .25
Problems/Time .58 .14 .65 .15

 

 

73
Although all differences are again, with few exceptions, in
the predicted direction, an analysis of variance revealed
no significant differences.

The pplpg_hypothesis states that the cued group will
be superior to the uncued group in all aspects of inquiry.
The means and standard deviations are given in Table 10.
There were no Significant differences. If anything, scores

appear to lean in the opposite direction.

TABLE 10

MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS FOR INQUIRY
VARIABLES CLASSIFIED BY CUEING

 

 

 

 

 

Variables Cued Group Non-Cued Group

X SD X SD
Bits 184.77 45.08 188.33 56.83
Time 126.73 33.74 131.96 30.05
Total Sources 55.13 11.07 56.90 13.44
Mean Sources 5.75 1.15 5.79 1.21
Shifts 127.26 44.20 131.43 54.20
Problem Sensitivity 76.30 17.59 77.90 16.13
Competence 26.10 3.76 26.26 3.59
Mean Competence 2.81 .38 2.75 .28
General Inquiry 148.76 25.36 151.40 24.98
Bits/Time 1.53 .36 1.44 .30
Shifts/Time 1.05 .35 .98 .28
Problems/Time .64 .17 .61 .14

 

The fourth hypothesis states that

the cued-openness

training group will be superior to the uncued-openness

training group in all aspects on inquiry.

statement about a training X

This is

cueing interaction.

a

An

74

analysis of variance revealed a significant interaction on
two inquiry variables: problem sensitivity (F=4.50, p<;02)
and general inquiry (F=3.47gp(.04). The appropriate ANOVA
tables are found in Appendix D. The means and standard

deviations are given in Table 11.

TABLE 11

MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS RELA ED T0
TREATMENT X CUEING INTERACTIO

 

 

Problem Sensitivity

 

Openness Problem
Training Solving
Training
Cue 67.4 80.4
(21.2) (15.5)
No Cue 86.9 70.6
(10.7) (14.6)
General Inquiry
Openness Problem
Training Solving
Training
138.0 149.7
cue (30.2) (25.1)
No Cue 164.9 140.1
(20.3) (18.1)

 

8In each cell, the number in parentheses is the SD; the
other is the mean.

75

Inspection of the means indicates that the interaction was

in exactly the opposite direction of what had been predicted.
The ipgp hypothesis states that didactic subjects will

benefit more from openness training than will dialectical

subjects. This is a statement that an interaction will occur

between seeking style and cueing, an interaction favoring

didactic subjects. No such an interaction occurred.

TABLE 12

CORRELATIONS OF SEEKING STYLE VARIABLES
WITH INQUIRY VARIABLES (N=60)a

 

 

 

Inquiry Inventory. Complexity Politics Word
Variables of.Beliefs ‘ Association
Bits .14 .14 .14 .19
Time .02 .13 .05 .14
Total Sources .12 —.O4 -.00 .35
Mean Sources .03 -.10 -.05 .26
Shifts .07 .01 .07 .11
Problem

Sensitivity .02 -.O4 -.04 .14
Competence .02 .02 -.O5 .18
Mean

Competence -.O4 -.O9 -.13 .13
General

Inquiry .07 -.02 -.04 .26
Bits/Time .15 .06 .14 .05
Shifts/Time .04 —.08 .05 -.01
PI‘OblemS/Tlme '001 "elu' "eOLl' -001

 

aFor N=60, a correlation of .21 or more will occur by chance
5% of the time; a correlation of .30 or more will occur 1%
of the time (two-tailed test).

76

This concludes a presentation of data related directly
to the hypotheses. Another area of interest concerns the
nature and degree of relationships between the seeking style
variables and the inquiry variables. These relations are
given in Table 12. With the exception of Eppg Association
the correlations between the two sets of variables are not
different from zero.

At the conclusion of the data gathering phase of this
study, information regarding the subject's academic apti-
tude was gathered from the Office of Evaluation Services.
The information consisted of College Qualification Eggp
scores and Michigan State University Reading scores. The
interest here was in assessing the degree of relationship
between aptitude variables and inquiry variables. The
degree and direction of the relations are given in Table 13.
Inspection of the table indicates that, in general, the
relationship between academic aptitude and inquiry, though
rather weak, is substantially stronger than the relationship
between seeking style variables and inquiry. Interestingly,
H232 Association, the seeking style variable most strongly
related to inquiry is also strongly related to academic
aptitude. The correlation of flppg_Association with Michigan
State University Reading is .40, with 992 Verbal is .21,
with 9gp Information is .18, with SSE Numericalis .19,
and with Qggigppgl is .26.

77

TABLE 13

C0RRELATICNS_0F ACADEMIC APTITUDE VARIABLES
WITH INQUIRY VARIARLRSLLU=6O)a

 

 

Inquiry MSU CQT CQT CQT CQT
Variables Reading Verbal Information Numerical Total

Bits .11 .09 .06 .07 .10
Time -.02 -.O3 -.O4 -.10 -.07
Total

Sources .25 .20 .08 .27 .25
Mean

Sources .26 .16 .05 .41 .28
Shifts .06 .02 —.06 .12 .04
Problem

Sensitivity .36 .30 .22 .18 .31
Competence .27 .04 .13 .18 .14
Mean

Competence .32 .09 .10 .24 .18
General

Inquiry .35 .22 .17 .25 .18
Bits/Time .12 .10 .11 .11 .14
Shifts/Time .06 .00 -.O4 .18 .07
Problems/Time .33 .26 .25 .20 .31

 

I aFor N=60, a correlation of .21 or more will occur by chance
5% of the time; a correlation of .30 or more will occur 1%
of the time (two-tailed test).

While dealing with the issue of relationships among
variables within this study, there is one last relation which
is of importance. That is the relation between the measure
of dogmatism and measures of inquiry. This relation is given
in Table 14. Apparently dogmatism as measured by the ppgpgf
E$§2.§2§l2.15 unrelated to inquiry as measured in this study.
This may be due to the fact that through training, variability

in dogmatism had been reduced, thus reducing the degree of

correlation.

:

‘ F‘
nan

r

«U
s . fish? a. L

We J AC.

78

TABLE 14

CORRELATIONS BETWEEN DOGMATISM AND
INQUIRY VARIABLES (N=60)a

 

 

 

 

Inquiry
Variables Dogmatism
Bits -.07
Time -.08
Total Sources -.11
Mean Sources -.06
Shifts -.06
Problem Sensitivity -.O7
Competence -.12
Mean Competence -.08
General Inquiry -.12
Bits/Time -.05
Shifts/Time -.02
Problems/Time .01

 

aFor N=60, a correlation of .21 or more will occur by chance
5% of the time; a correlation of .30 or more will occur 1%
of the time (two-tailed test).

Summary

Inspection of the results indicates that the hypotheses
enumerated in Chapter III were not supported. One hypothe-
sis was even reversed. In the next chapter these results

are discussed.

CHAPTER V

DISCUSSION

It was clear from the results presented in Chapter IV
that the hypotheses in Chapter III went largely unconfirmed.
For some this would be a signal to stop working. But this,
a dissertation on inquiry, is itself an inquiry. The situa-
tion before us is, in Dewey's terms, indeterminate and
demands further inquiry. The task ahead is to transform
this indeterminate Situation into one which lS_determined
in the sense that the elements and their relations have
been defined.

The chapter is divided into four sections: (a) seeking
style and inquiry, (b) training and inquiry, (c) academic

aptitude and inquiry, and (d) cueing and inquiry.

Seeking Style and Inquiry

The fact that there were no differences in inquiry
between dialectical and didactic seekers was one surprising
result of the present study. It was surprising because in
two previous studies (Shulman, 1963; Shulman pp 31., 1968)
seeking style had been shown to be a powerful determinant
of inquiry. AS was seen from Table 4 the degree of separa-

tion on seeking style variables between dialectical and

79

80

didactic seekers was at least as great in the present study
as in the previous studies. The discrepancy between these
results and those of the earlier work needed some investi—
gation. Three possible explanatory hypotheses were examined.
One was that there had originally been a difference between
the groups but that training had reduced or eliminated it.
The second one was that the two groups were not sufficiently
different to begin with. A third was that seeking style is
an effective variable only for those subjects who have an
equal knowledge base, that such a base did not exist in

this sample.

First, let us examine the hypothesis that training in
openness was more effective for didactic than for dialectical
subjects, resulting in their being able to close the distance
between themselves and their dialectical counterparts. This
may be called the "catch-up" hypothesis.

Evidence pointing in this direction has already been
presented in Chapter III. When the gain scores of didaCtic
subjects on the Inventory 2: Beliefs were considered in
relation to dogmatism scores, a strong positive correlation
was noted. If gain scores are correlated with a measure of
openness and if openness is facilitative of inquiry, then
gain scores might also be expected to correlate with inquiry
scores. This possibility was tested for the ten didactic
subjects who had participated in openness training. Results
were negative. The Product Moment correlation coefficient

was .17.

 

81

This analysis was suggestive but for two reasons it was
objectionable. In the first place, gain scores are typically
unreliable. The person who is lowest stands to gain most
Simply as a function of where he started. He may still end
up below a person who has changed much less. In the second
place, the Pearson Product-Moment correlation coefficient
tends to be unstable for small N.

Consequently these data were analyzed again using the
Spearman Rank correlation coefficient. This coefficient
is recommended for use either with small N or when the level
of measurement is no higher than ordinal.

For this particular analysis the only variables
examined were Inventory 23 Beliefs (first administration),

Inventory 9: Beliefs (second administration), Dogmatism,

 

and General Inquiry. The purpose was, as stated earlier,
to test for any differential effects of training. The
results are displayed in Table 15.

Looking at results for dialecticals, it can be seen that
from administration one to administration two of the Inventopy
pi Beliefs the ranks changed very little. Thus when these
administrations were correlated with either Dogmatism or
General Inquiry, the correlation coefficients were very simi-
lar and negligible. The correlation between ranks on
Dogmatism and General Inquiry approached significance.

The picture is quite different for didactics. Between
first administration and second administration of the Spygp-

tory pi Beliefs, considerable changes in ranks had occurred

82

as indicated by the low correlation between the two. This
same thing was reflected in the differential correlations
of the two administrations with both Dogmatism and General
Inquiry. Rankings on the Inventory q§_Beliefs EEEEE train—
ing were positively correlated with rankings on both
criterion variables. Finally, ranks on Dogmatism were

positively correlated with ranks on General Inquiry.

TABLE 15

SPEARMAN RANK CORRELATIONS AMONG INVENTORY a
OF BELIEFS, DOGMATISM SCALE, AND GENERAL INQUIRY (N=10)

 

 

I of B 1 1 1.00

I of B 2 2 .21 (.91)b 1.00
Dogmatism 3 -.27 (-.10) .37 (-.01) 1.00
General 4 -.45 (.05) .48 (—.11) .45 (.51) 1.00
Inquiry
1 2 3 4

 

aFor N=10, a correlation of .564 or more will occur by chance
5% of the time; a correlation of .746 or more will occur 1%
f the time.

Correlations within parentheses are for dialectical subjects;
the others are for didactic subjects.
These relations can only be accepted as suggestive since,
because of the small numbers of subjects involved, only one
of the correlations was Significant. They were consistent
with the hypothesis that didactic subjects were likely to
benefit from training in openness more than were dialectical

subjects.

83

Another approach was tried. This time scatterplots
were made which showed relationships among the following
variables: (a) dogmatism, (b) general inquiry, and (c) CQT
total scores. These plots were examined person by person,
group against group. This scatterplot analysis revealed a
very strong relation between academic aptitude and general
inquiry. Twenty-one of the 40 subjects examined rated high
on general inquiry. Of these 21 subjects, 15 were also
high on academic aptitude. This strong relation between
academic aptitude and inquiry shows up in other parts of the
study and is discussed fully in another section.

It seems that there may have been a small effect of
training which favored the didactic subjects. This was not
sufficient in itself to explain the differences between this
study and the earlier studies in obtained results.

There is another aspect of this hypothesis that deserves
mention and that is the possibility that any training at all
may have eliminated the effectiveness of the seeking style
variable. That is, training itself may have had the effect
of increasing all the subject' commitment to inquiry to such
a degree that seeking style was no longer a relevant variable.
This would mean that seeking style is a rather fragile vari-
able which may be observed only when no experimental treatment
is involved, that is, in a more "natural" situation.

If this is true, what would happen if one took more
extreme types of seekers? If seeking style were manipulated

in an even more extreme way than was done in this study and

84

earlier ones, if the two groups were sufficiently different
would differences in inquiry due to seeking style reappear
in Spite of the application of treatment variables. In
order to examine this hypothesis it is necessary to define
what is meant by "sufficiently different".

Figure 1 reproduces a figure from Shulman pp p;., (1968)
which depicts the amount of expected error variance in pre-
dictions of inquiry performance. At the polar extremes are
the dialectical and didactic ideal types. According to the

figure, when one is confronted by one of the extreme types,

the probability of making an error of prediction is rela-
tively small. But as one approaches the center of the
distribution, that is, as one encounters people who differ
more and more from the ideal types, the probability of mak-
ing prediction errors grows very large. Essentially, then,
the question of what one means by "sufficiently different"
boils down to a question of the amount of prediction error
one is willing to tolerate. It is the researcher's responsi-
bility to set cut-off points on the distribution beyond

which he is not willing to go.

An example of this type of approach was cited in
Chapter II. Stern et al., (1956) wanted to study the dif-
ferences between the theoretical polar types called stereo-
paths and non-stereopaths. The Inventgpy pp Beliefs was
administered to a large sample of subjects. Cut-off points
were established at :1 standard deviation from the mean.

All subjects above the upper cut-off point were arbitrarily

85

wHdem H

6mm ammowmeHo>b wmb>eHozmme Ow bwwwOXH3>eHoz 80 >2
Hdm>b w0b>w emwm AUH>meeHo>b Ow OHU>06HOV >20 6mm
>ZOCze ow wwwow <>wH>ZOw Hz wwonoeHozm 3>Um ow HZDCHwK wmwmow3>zom

 

>aocsd ow meson
p5 weoaHOdPoSm

 

x x
Haomw oocawsscs ow are wmsmo ow Hancpeeem Heomw
Unaccepo . upmwoOdpomw

awpo expo

86

designated as non-stereopaths. All subjects below the
lower cut-off point were designated as stereopaths. The
middle 68% was dropped from the study. For Stern et al.,
(1956) ”sufficiently different" was defined as at least two
standard deviations apart.

These considerations suggested that it would be wise
to examine the present selection procedure and its results.
The experimental sample was chosen from an available popula-
tion of restricted size. The procedure used for drawing
the sample was designed to give two groups which would be as
different pp possible. What was possible, given the con-
ditions of the study, may have turned out to be far from
desirable. By the time all the cells were filled there was
considerable overlap between groups (though no more than
was experienced in previous studies). For example, if one
examines initial scores for the Inventory pp Beliefs, he
finds that somewhat more than half of the 60 subjects lay
within the range where the theoretical probability of pre—
diction error is greatest. Only 15 subjects were at least
as high as one standard deviation above the mean and only
12 subjects were at least as low as one standard deviation
below.

Let us consider what might have happened if it had
been possible to maintain in the present study a selection
criterion as rigorous as that used by Stern, pp pp. This
can be done, though without statistical precision, by con-

sidering just the subjects who had a score on the Inventory

87

5E Beliefs that was 568 ors 51.

This division gives 15

subjects in a lower group and 15 in an upper group. These

two groups are almost two standard deviations apart. Means

for these subjects are found in Table 16.

TABLE 16

MEANS FOR GENERAL INQUIRY AND CQT TOTAL CLASSIFIED
BY SEEKING STYLE AND TRAINING GROUP (N=30)

 

 

Control

QEOHQ

Didactic Seekers N=3

X
136.67

(131.33)8

Dialectical Seekers N=6

X‘
142.85
(135.50)

Problem
Solving

.9222.
N=7

X
149.14
(125.71)
N=3
X'

158.33
(120.00)

Openness
Group

N=5

x
167.20
(123.40)

N=6
X'

158.33
(136.50)

 

aMeans within parentheses are for CQT Total; the other means

are for General Inquiry.

This gives an entirely new look to the situation. One

begins to see what looks like effects both of Seeking style

and of training. If, as seems likely, selecting this way

results in a decrease in within groups variability the pro-

bability of observing significant differences is greatly

increased.

One might suspect that these differences were due not

88

to seeking style but rather to differences in academic
aptitude. An inspection of the means for ggg gpppp in Table
14 reveals that this can hardly be the case since the better
inquirers tend on the whole to be somewhat less intelligent.

A third hypothesis dealing with the problem of no sig-
nificant differences on the seeking style dimension was
advanced. This was that seeking style may be a powerful
variable only after subjects have been equated for a know-
ledge base. In Shulman pp.p;., (1968) the subjects had been
largely seniors in college. The subjects in the present
experiment were largely sophomores. Hence between the samples
for the two studies there must have been large differences in
knowledge about educational matters relevant to inquiry in
the Teacher's In-Basket, things like knowledge of how to
interpret achievement Scores and other kinds of information
that appear on the in-basket materials.

This section began with a question about why there were
no significant differences in inquiry between dialectical
vs. didactic seekers. Three hypotheses were examined; all
seemed reasonable. Probably all the factors discuSsed inter-
acted to produce the effect. Treatment, even for controls,
may have acted to increase commitment to inquiry in such a
way as to reduce differences on the seeking style dimension.
In addition, the openness treatment may have been somewhat
more effective for didactic than for dialectical seekers.
There iS a suggestion that had the seeking style groups been

more extreme, effects for that might still have been observed.

89
Training and Inquiry

The present study was designed with three levels of
training but in spite of that, not all possible comparisons
were of interest. In fact, only two comparisons were ever
intended; problem solving training vs. control training and
openness training vs. control training. The most natural
mode of analysis for two such comparisons would have been
planned comparisons. Only too late did S become aware of
the fact that these two comparisons are not independent and
that as a consequence only one of them could legitimately
be made. Since the study was being handled by two different
researchers each of whom wished to make the comparison
relevant to his study, the planned comparisons method was
drOpped in favor of an overall analysis of variance for
each dependent variable separately. It was this analysis
that was reported in Chapter IV.

Ordinarily, follow-up analyses would use the post hoc
comparison method which permits any number of comparisons.
However, this method is permissible only if the analysis of
variance has located some significant differences and the
researcher wants to ascertain where the differences are.

In addition, when the analysis of variance indicates that
there are no significant differences, post hoc analyses only
confirm the finding.

Thus, in order to examine the data further, it was
decided to analyze just those differences of interest to the

present study, namely, openness training vs. control training.

90

This would be equivalent to treating the study as though it
were designed as a 2 X 2 X 2, that is, as though the problem
solving training were not an integral part of the overall
study. Analyses reported in this section were carried out
under these restraints.

In Chapter IV it was observed that there was not suffi-
cient evidence to reject the null hypothesis of no effect
for training. There were, however, two differences which
were rather large and which approached significance, Eppp
(F=1.90, p .16) and Sppp (F=1.94, p .16). They involved
variables which are of deep interest in relation to the
theory of inquiry under study. When they were analyzed
again, ignoring the problem solving group, these differences
were significant or near-significant. For Tppp, F=3.80
(p< .06) and for B_i_pp, F=3.88 (p<.05). _The differences

were in the predicted direction.

In previous theorizing about inquiry (Shulman, 1963;
Shulman et al., 1968) the concept of time spent in inquiry
had important status. The time a subject spent working on
the inpbasket task was taken as an operational indicator
of the subject's willingness to inquire which, in turn, was
thought to be related to his tolerance, even liking, for
ambiguity and complexity. The status of the time variable
within the theory was given by Shulman:

This picture of inquiry makes the inquiry process

analogous in some ways to the operation of a

camera. There are three dimensions which determine

the clarity of the picture taken by a camera. The
first is the amount of time the shutter remains

91

open. The second is the quality of the lens. The
third is the sensitivity or speed of the film used
in the camera. All things being equal, the longer
the shutter is left open, the stronger the impres-
sion made by the light on the film. If the shutter
is opEn adequately, but the lens distorts the image,
the total impression is lost. If the shutter is

not open, no level of film sensitivity will lead to
a good impression.

We see time as analOgous to shutter speed, problem

sensitivity to focal resolution of the lens and
film speed to inquiry competence (Shulman et al.,

1968. pp. 96- 97).

Thus, time spent in inquiry was conceptualized as one
of three key factors in the process. When these three
functioned together in an optimal way, competent inquiry
was said to result.

The theory also gave a hint about the way in which these
three factors interact. It was hypothesized that "time . . .
most directly influences the problem sensitivity score
(ibid., p.96)." That is, the data up to that time had indi-
cated that a high amount of time Spent in inquiry was
associated with a high number of problems sensed. Correlae
tions between the two variables had ranged from .46 to .69.
In the present study the correlation was .41.

Now it seems that the relation between time and problem
sensitivity, though strong, may not be as automatic as it
once seemed. If the two variables had acted in concert as
predicted by the theory the observed increase in time might
have been expected to result in an increase in problem
sensitivity. This did not happen. The results of this study

make it appear that the two factors operate independently.

92

This raises certain questions about what kinds of things
do influence problem sensitivity. It also raises questions

about the limits of the usefulness of openness training.

The question that needs an answer is this: can problem
sensitivity best be conceptualized as a generalized process
variable or as a series of learned discriminations or both?

Certain observations made during in-basket Sessions
gave credence to the hypothesis that problem sensitivity,
if not reduced to learned discriminations, at least has a
high learning component. The observations referred to were
of the following type. subject A looks at a report card
which has grades in the C to D range. She says, "It looks
like this one is doing all right." Subject B looks at the
very same stimulus and says, "This is awful. Something
must be wrong.” If that particular stimulus array happens
to be listed in the problem manual as a problem, B's pro-
blem sensitivity score is incremented by one while A's
remains the same. For that one problem B is more problem
sensitive than A. Or is She?

That, of course, is the point. Were the reactions
of A and B to the stimulus simply a function of their
learning? Does the problem sensitivity score on the
Teacher's In-Basket simply reward the person who has learned

more of education's consensually-shared discriminations?

The position taken here is that learning within a particular
field interacts with the generalized characteristic called

problem Sensitivity to produce the problem sensitive person.

93

The absence of one or the other of the two components would
result in a person who in his behavior would appear rather
insensitive to discrepancies, or, as Dewey would have it,
to indeterminate situations.

This gives at least one way of explaining why openness
training had no effect on problem Sensitivity. It was a
very generalized training procedure. The in-basket was
very specifically related to a particular kind of teacher
behavior. There was nothing in the training procedure to
help the subjects make the specific professional discrimina—
tions which were outlined in the in-basket problem manual.
Therefore, the fact that there was no effect on problem
sensitivity is not surprising. Whether the training pro-
cedure resulted in some increase in that generalized
cognitive characteristic which when combined with learned
discriminations results in problem sensitive behavior is
a moot question.

The fact that the openness group processed more bits
of information seems to have been simply a function of the
time spent. Ordinarily one would associate more bits with
more information. This should in turn lead to more compe-
tent solutions. But it did not. This may again be due to
the fact that proper discriminations were not available to
the subjects.

Most of what these data tell us was already anticipated

by Shulman:

94

We will speculate on the nature of the inquiry
process . . .

It seem that the inquiry process involve at

least two stages. The first stage is the com-

mitment to involve oneself in inquiry. This

is what occurs when the individual decides to

open himself up to engage in the inquiry pro-

cess. The second stage occurs when, having

opened himself up to whatever extent he had

determined, he engages in the Sensing, formu-

lating, searching, and resolving aspects of

inquiry (Shulman pp p;., 1968, p. 96).

Surely the present results have underlined this analysis
with emphasis. The manipulation of openness through train—
ing had its only effects in increasing time spent in inquiry,
that is, commitment. Additional time spent had little effect
on the processes of problem Sensing, etc. This fact speaks
both for the legitimacy of the twoestage inquiry model and

also for the relative independence of the two stages.

Academic Aptitude and Inquiry

The general conclusion from previous studies of inquiry
(Shulman, 1963; Shulman et a., 1968) had been that academic
aptitude is not as important a determiner of inquiry behav-
ior as are other more general personality variables like
cognitive complexity, allocentricity and others already
mentioned. Support for this conclusion came from analyses
of correlations between scores on tests of academic aptitude
and in—basket inquiry Scores. In Shulman et al., the
correlation between General Inquiry and SSE Epppp_was .19

and .17. In the same study analyses using the regression

95

technique showed that academic aptitude typically accounted
for less than 10% of the variance in inquiry behavior.

In the present study the above conclusions Seem to
have been supported. The correlation here between Qgg_$pppp
and General Inquiry was .28.

Normally this is all that would have been said about
this relation since academic aptitude was not one of the
variables under test. But by a rare accident of random
assignment, people were assigned to cells in such a way as
to produce wide discrepancies between cells apparently
without affecting the test of the independent variables.
Note in Table 17 the reasonably even distribution of

academic ability across treatments.

TABLE 17

MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS FOR CQT TOTAL
CLASSIFIED BY TREATMENT (N=60)

 

 

 

Variable
X SD
Dialectical 131.60
seeking Style Didactic 127.63
Control 131.10
Training Problem Solving 129.65
Openness 128.10
Cue 128.33

cueing No Cue 130.90

 

96

Now compare that with the very unequal distribution of

academic aptitude between cells in Table 18.

TABLE 18

DISTRIBUTION OF ACADEMIC APTITUDE
AMONG CELLS--CQT TOTAL

 

 

Control Problem Openness
Trainipg Solving Training
Training
Cue 147.6 133.0 122.0
Dialectical No Cue 117.4 129.2 140.4
Cue 126.0 124.4 117.0
DidaCtic No Cue 133.4 132.0 133.0

 

This unequal distribution provided the opportunity to
ask about the effect of academic aptitUde when differences
become large. An answer to the question is given by Figure
2. w‘ ' '

It appears that when differences on academic aptitude
are very large, there are corresponding differences in
inquiry behavior and dogmatism. High aptitude was associated
both with high inquiry and with low dogmatism and vice versa.

There may have been some unfortunate consequences for
this study as a result of the assignment of three low aptitude
subjects to the dialectical-cued-openness cell. The three

constituted a majority and pulled down the performance not

97

 

 

 

170 ‘- 167°0 General
Inquiry
160 P
150)-
140 b
qulmmal
130 h A
quumiua
120 -
iELB
110 P
_ i. A 101.4 1 _
Dialectical Dialectical Didactic Didactic
cum: thcmnd Gnu! Netcmmd
FIGURE 2

PLOT OF CELL MEANS 0N CQT TOTAL, GENERAL INQUIRY,
AND DOGMATISM FOR OPENNESS TRAINING GROUP

only of their cell but also of the entire dialectical group.)
Evidence of this negative effect came in the two interactions
for problem sensitivity and general inquiry involving treat-
ment and cueing. That these two interactions are almost
entirely an artifact of pitting two low aptitude groups
against two high aptitude groups is attested by the means in
Table 19. The interaction is plotted in Figure 3.

98

TABLE 19

PROBLEM SENSITIVITY MEANS FOR CELLS CLASSIFIED BY
SEEKING STYLE, TREATMENT AND CUEING

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Control Problem Openness
Training Solving Training
Training
Cue 82.4 83.6 66.6
D1al°°t1°al No Cue 68.0 83.8 84.2
Cue 78.4 78.6 68.2
Didactic No Cue 73.2 68.6 89.6
9° r
85 .
80 )-
75 I-
70 W
55 b

 

 

Ls pi :i
Control Problu Openness
mnmm Senna; Gnmm

Gnu“) .
FIGURE 3

)

PLOT OF TREATMENT BY CUEING INTERACTION
FOR PROBLEM SENSITIVITY

'99

Exactly the same kind of thing holds in the treatment by
cueing interaction for General Inquiry. The interactions
have absolutely no meaning for the theory of inquiry.

It Seems, then, that academic aptitude does play a role
in inquiry when differences in aptitude become extreme. Any

future studies will have to take this into account.

Cueing and Inquiry

At the time that this study was being designed it Seemed
quite reasonable to suppose that cueing Subjects to make use
of their training would influence them in the direction of
more effective behavior. There was a solid precedent within
the experimental tradition to indicate that this was so. It
was a surprise, then, to discover that here there was no
detectable effect. Why might this be so?

The answer may lie in differences in task complexity.
Those experimental situations where cueing has functioned

powerfully have typically been of a relatively simple type,

that is, relative to an experiment like the present one.
A subject walks in to the laboratory with little or no fore-
warning about what he will be expected to do. He is given
a problem along with some cue or strategy which, he is told,
will aid him in the solution.

In contrast to this kind of situation, the present

experiment went through an elaborate Selection procedure.

100

People in the screening population were told that on the
basis of certain demonstrated cognitive characteristicS
some of them would be chosen for further participation.
Later, those who were chosen went through a substantial
training and testing exercise involving four hours spread
over four days. Finally they were asked to participate in
the in-basket.

Given these circumstances it seems most probable that
all subjects went into the in-basket self-instructed
according to the way they interpreted the experiment. In
brief, the point that is being suStained is that all subjects
were cued. The experimental "cue" simply got lost.

The summary and conclusions will be presented in the

next chapter.

CHAPTER VI

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

1...- _ _-

The purpose of the present study was to assess the

 

effects of training in openness on inquiry behavior. Also
of substantive interest were the effects of seeking style
and cueing on inquiry. The study can be envisioned as a
pretest-posttest design.

The pretest phase consisted of a selection battery of
tests which was used to select 60 subjects for further study.
The subjects were selected to approximate two seeking styles,
dialectical seeking and didactic seeking with 30 subjects in
each of the two categories. Seeking style was thus one factor
with two levels.

There were three experimental treatments, two of which
were theoretically relevant to inquiry. One of the relevant
treatments was training in problem solving; the other was
training in openness. The third treatment was, of course, a
control supposedly irrelevant for inquiry. Treatment was
thus a second factor with three levels.

The present study treats only the training of openness.
For an explanation on the effects of training in problem
solving on inquiry, the interested reader should consult
the dissertation by Michael J. Loupe.

Following the treatments the posttests were given.

101

102

They consisted of Loupe's Problem Solving Tppp, Rokeach's
Dogmatism Spplp, and Shulman's Teacher's In-Basket.

Within the in-basket sessions half the subjects were cued
to make use of their training; the other half was not cued.
Thus cueing was a third factor with two levels.

In general the independent variables were not powerful.
The reasons for these results were largely drawn from the
data themselves and discussed.

The most probable reason for no effects due to seeking
style was that the two groups had not been sufficiently
different to begin with. The recommendation for any future
study making use of the seeking style continuum would be to
make sure that subjects are sufficiently different that
prediction error is reduced to tolerable limits.

Effects of openness training were seen in the greater
willingness of Openness subjects to Spend more time in
inquiry and to process more bits of information in the pro-
cess. In spite of this there was no appreciable increase
in problem sensitivity. The interpretation given to this
fact was that problem sensitivity is made up of two components:
(a) a general sensitivity to the discrepant combined with
(b) field-specific learned discriminations. If this is true
then there was never any reason to expect that openness
training would have much effect on the major goal of inquiry
which is competence. Inquiry competence itself must be seen
as an interaction between seeking style and learning.

There was no effect for cueing. The training was itself

103

a cue. To include such a variable in any future study of
inquiry would be inadvisable.

One finding, unrelated to any hypotheses, was that
intelligence seems to affect inquiry the more one departs
from the mean. In this study subjects who were low in
academic aptitude were more likely to be low in inquiry and
vice versa. It would therefore be wise in any future studies

of inquiry to establish control over this variable.

Implications for Theory

This research has attempted to investigate some relation-
ships between two theories: (a) a theory of inquiry and (b)

a theory of openness.

The theory of inquiry was that put forward by Dewey and
modified by Shulman. It divides the process of inquiry into
four sub-processes: (a) problem sensing, (b) problem formu-
lation, (c) search, and (d) resolution.

The theory of openness was formed by integrating four
personality models into one. The theory of openness tries
to describe the manner in which certain kinds of people relate
to four different areas of experience: (a) ideas and intel-
lectual abstractions, (b) social groups, (0) other persons,
and (d) self.

The results of training of openness have shown no demon-
strable effects at all on any of the four sub-processes

outlined by Shulman. By definition the whole process of

104

inquiry begins with problem sensing. People trained in
concept learning were as effective in doing this as were
people trained in openness.

This is not to say that openness training had no effect
on inquiry at all. It has already been stated that one of
the important prerequisites for inquiry to occur at all is
for the inquirer to be willing to encounter and deal with
the discrepant and the ambiguous. The best measure of this
willingness to inquire is time spent in inquiry. The people
trained in openness did, by this definition, become potentially
better inquirers than the control subjects.

Dewey has said that for inquiry to occur there has to
be an indeterminate situation. What is emphasized here is
that there must also be a co-occurence of willingness in the
inquirer to encounter and deal with that indeterminate situ-
ation. Thus openness training can be viewed as affecting a
pre-inquiry willingness to inquire as well as motivation to
continue.

But willingness to inquire is not enough. Specific
learning of what constitutes a discrepancy for any particular
field of inquiry must also be present. Thus three ingredi—
ents combine to form the prerequisites for the event called
problem sensing. Two of these prerequisites are in the
learner and one in the situation. The situation may be dia-

gramed as in Figure 4.

105

 

AN

INDETERMINATE
SITUATION \\\

 

 

 

 

 

WILLINGNESS PROBLEM

TO
INQUIRE SENSING

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

DISCRIMINATION
LEARNING

 

 

 

FIGURE 4

DIAGRAM SHOWING THE THREE PREREQUISITES
TO PROBLEM SENSING

Clearly, training in openness was able to affect only

the willingness to inquire. On reflection this was not too

surprising.

Implications for Education

Inquiry has been described by Dewey as a process which
has certain formal characteristics which remain constant
across situations. The four subprocesses listed above are
one way of describing these formal characteristics. Their
very generality is what gives them their power. But they
are powerless indeed unless aided by specific learning. It

would be interesting to see how specific learning interacts

 

106

with all phases of the inquiry process. This question is

posed in Figure 5.

 

 

INQUIRY
Problem—’ Problem ————’ Search -———--+Resolution
Sensing Formulation I
Discrimination I
Learning ? j. ? 7 ?

FIELD-SPECIFIC LEARNING

FIGURE 5
UNANSWERED QUESTIONS ABOUT INTERRELATIONS
OF INQUIRY AND FIELD-SPECIFIC LEARNING

What are the implications of openness training for educa-
tion. First it should be recognized that openness is not
some esoteric concept completely foreign to the educational
scene. It is a learned way of relating to one's world where
"world” is interpreted to mean both self and other selves,
internal events and external events. It Sets the stage for
effective inquiry to occur.

If this is true, and if we can learn what it is that
opens people and what closes them up, then we can learn
to manipulate the conditions so as to increase the proba-
bility of opening them up, increasing their willingness to
inquire. The present study implies that at least this much

can occur as a function of learning.

107
Implications for Research

The present study raised questions about the conditions
under which seeking style can be expected to appear as a
determiner of inquiry behavior. Conditions which were dis-
cussed included (a) academic aptitude, (b) extent of know-
ledge base, (c) extremity of position on the seeking style
dimension, and (d) the presence or absence of training pre-
ceding the inquiry session. These four conditions are all
variables which could and should be manipulated.

A second area of possible research involves the train-
ing of openness. Would the training of openness have been
more powerful if it had lasted longer? Which is the more
powerful technique for teaching openness, verbal reinforce-
ment or the induction of inconsistency? Would the model of
Openness have been more effective if it had been more
focused instead of being so general and diffuse? These are
all questions which could be studied in further research.

A third area of research was referred to earlier, that
of investigating the factorial complexity of two areas of the
present study: (a) seeking style as defined by the selection
battery and (b) inquiry behavior itself as defined by the
in-basket variables. The correlations reveal that in both
cases there is much dependence of one measure on another.

It would be of great value to theory to ascertain just how
many factors are present.

Finally, it would be well to try to ascertain the kind

108

of Specific knowledge base that underlies each of the four
subprocesses of inquiry. Learned discriminations have
already been identified as underlying problem sensing. What
might underlie the other three subprocesses?

This last question is one which can be investigated
empirically. If it were, what might one expect to find?
Perhaps a few Speculations are in order.

Dewey (1938) assumed that problem formulation was a
kind of generalized strategy which could be applied across
a variety of Situations. It was a matter of juxtaposing
the discrepant elements in a manner that would guide the
search for further information and anticipate the form of
the solution. Dewey insisted that a problem well formulated
is a problem half solved.

What kind of specific knowledge base might be expected
to underlie problem formulation? Most likely the base
contains two elements: (a) a knowledge of the elements
(concepts) appropriate to the specific field and (b) a
knowledge of how to combine those elements in valid and
meaningful ways. In other words, the person who is most
adept at forming lawful "if . . . then" statements will
be the person who is most adept at formulating problems.

The knowledge base underlying the search process is
likely to be of less crucial importance than the knowledge
base underlying problem sensing and problem formulation.

The reason is that if the problem has been well formulated,

the area for search will have been greatly delimited. The

109

knowledge base is simply a knowledge about sources of
information relevant to the problem-as-formulated.

It is difficult to say whether there is such a thing as
a knowledge base underlying the process of problem resolu-
tion. If there is, it would not likely be much different
from that which underlies problem formulation. A problem
resolution is in a unique position in that it reaches back
for support in established knowledge but at the same time
reaches out to the unknown. It is to be judged not only
in terms of its consistency with past knowledge but also in
terms of its consequences. Thus, underlying problem reso-
lution lie not only issues of knowledge but also issues of

value.

 

REFERENCES

Adorno, T.W., Frenkel-Brunswik, Else, Levinson, D.S., and
Sanford, R.N. The Authoritarian Personality, New York:
Harper, 1950.

Bettelheim, Bruno. The Informed Heart; Autonomy in a Mass
A e, Glencoe: Free Press, 1960. ' -
F

Bracht, G.H., and Glass, G.V. The external validity of ex-
perimentsfi American Educational Research Journal, 4, ,
, .

 

 

.2: 437-47 71968.
Combs, A.W. A perceptual view of the adequate personality,
In A.W. Combs (ed.) Perceivi Behavi Becomi ,
Washington: National E ucation Assoc at on, . 4

Dewey, J. Logic: The Theory of Inquiry, New York: Henry
Holt and Co., 1938.

Insko, C. Verbal reinforcement of attitude. J. Pers. soc.
Psychol., 1965, p, 621—623.

Insko, C.A. Theories of Attitude Change, New York:
Appleton-Century-Crofts, 19677

Janis, I., and Mann, L. Effectiveness of emotional role-
playing in modifying smoking habits and attitudes.
J. exp. Res. Pers., 1965, p, 84-90.

Lewin, K., Dembo, Tamara, Festinger, L., and Sears, Pauline.
Level of aspiration, In J. McV. Hunt (ed.), Personality
and Behavior Disorders, New York: Ronald Press, Vol. 1,
1944.

Loupe, M.J. The Training of Problem Solving and Inquiry.
Doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, 1969.

Maslow, A. Some basic propositions of a growth and self-
sctualization psychology, In A.W. Combs (ed.), Per-

ceiving, BehavipgE Becomigg, Washington: National
uca on ssoc a ion, 9 , .

Rogers, C.R. Toward becoming a fully functioning person,
In A.W. Combs (ed.), Perceiving, Behaving; Becoming,
Washington: National Education Association, 1962.

Rokeacha M. The Open and Closed Mind, New York: Basic Books,
19 0.

Rokeach, M. Beliefserttitude , and Values, San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass, Inc., Publishers, 1968.

110

111

Rosenthal, R. Ex erimenter Effects in Behavioral Research,
New York: AppIeton-Century-Crofts, I965.

Schachtel, E. Metamorphosis, New York: Basic Books, 1959.

Shulman, L.S. Seeking Styles and Individual Differences

in Patterns of In uir , Dbctoral dissertation, University
of CfiIcago, I965.

Shulman, L.S. Seeking styles and individual differences in
patterns of inquiry, School Review, 73, 3, 1965.

Shulman, L.S., Loupe, M.J., and Piper, R.M. Studies of the
Inquiry Process, East Lansing: Educational Publication
Services, Co e e of Education, Michigan State Univer-
sity, RR-ZZ, 19 8.

Stern, G.G., Stein, M.I., and Bloom, B.S. Methods in
Personality Assessment, Glencoe: Free Press, 1956.

Witkin, H., pp pl., Personality Through Perception,
New York: Harper and Bros., 1954.

Yelon, S. School Learni , Dubuque: Wm. C. Brown Co., 1969.

APPENDIX A

Appendix A contains the scoring key for competence.

112

Cooper
1.

3.
4.
Hoffman

1.
2.

113

COMPETENCE SCORING KEY

Gathers information but makes no attempt to treat
problems. '

Deals with birthday and/or Friday problems adminis-
tratively and/or in terms of some solution which

ignores Cooper's social alienation and its presumed I
causes.

Deals with birthday and/or Friday problems in terms
of Cooper's social alienation.

Deals with all symptoms (birthday, Fridays, dropping
grades, isolation, low feeling of belonging, inability 1
to work independently) in terms of some unified
approach which treats underlying causes (tomboy behav-
ior, age, rural orientation, appearance).

 

 

Gathers information but makes no attempt to treat
problems.

Relates symptoms (does not bring assignments in,
fights with his own friend, ignores his step-sister,
gets poor grades, low achievement, poor deportment,
absent and tardy) to ppp of the underlying problems
(low ability, step-father, new town, new school,
capable and popular step-Sister in same class, small
in comparison with peers).

Relates symptoms to at least two underlying problems.

Relates symptoms to at least three underlying problems.

Poor RC, low CTP, isolate

Grades discrepant with IQ, underachiever, drop in
grades, chooses popular kids.

Emotional problems, sister coming, poems vs. grades,
problem chronic and getting worse, stuttering.

Comparing Jane with Shirley, pressure relation between
Jane and parents, no best friend.

5.

Lyons
1.

2.
3.

4.

Maloney
1.

2.

114

Sister is a star - cannot compete, home pressure
getting worse because of sister's visit, reaction
formation (stuttering is unconscious rebellion).

Identifies problems (low RC, low cardex, low CTP,
almost isolate, migrant) but proposes no solutions.

Identifies problems (oldest in class, dyad, transfer _
student, absent and tardy, underachiever) but draws t
no conclusions.

Explains problems in terms of cliches or the obvious
(slow learner, emotional problems, low motivation, I
social problem, needs academic help, frustration and I
blocking, needs extra help, dislikes school).

 

Explains problems in terms of factors which are known
to be related to the kinds of symptoms presented
(language, culture, parents with low education cannot
help, emphasis in migrant community on physical sur-
vival, high incidence of absences, frequent moves,

poor entry skills, large family but small house,

social Skills, social discrimination, early maturation,
lower class kid in middle class school).

Borderline CTP, isolate.
Older, bigger than most.

Twin brother, cleft palate, repeated 4th grade, low
feeling of belonging, withdrawal tendencies.

Possible speech problem, emotional problem due to
brother ahead, possible physical deformity.

Treats Maloney but makes no attempt to tie anything
up.

Treats Maloney but takes administrative approach
(change seating arrangement, separate boys and girls
in P.E.), restates problem without adding anything
new, or diagnoses in terms of cliches (feelings of
inferiority, emotional problem, cry baby, does not
feel part of group, trouble communicating, nothing
really wrong, does not know what is wrong).

30

115

Makes effective approach in terms of Specific and
known relationships between variables (overweight
impedes performance in P.E.; overweight may have a
non-physical basis and may need psychiatric atten-
tion; overweight may have a physical basis and
requires medical attention; assumes that overweight,
if it has a physical basis, is either being ignored
by physician-father or if under treatment, is not
yielding to treatment; recognizes relationships
between social problems such as isolation, not work-

ing and playing well with others, low CTP, teasing, I
all these and overweight; need to find some way to
help her lose weight).

 

Moore

1. Aware of math problem but makes no prescription;
unaware of band-math conflict. L

2. Aware of math problem and makes a prescription; un—
aware of band-math conflict.

. Aware of band-math conflict but makes no prescription.

4. Aware of band- math conflict and prescribes for that
immediate problem.

5. Aware of band-math conflict; makes prescription which
accounts both for immediate band problem as well as
long-term math problem.

Rosen

1. Gets facts about his brilliance but makes no recom-
mendations.

2. Prescribes extra work.

3. Prescribes more challenging work or enrichment.

Sieminsky

1. Low RC, absent for CTP, no field trip slip in, pop-
ular, bruises, hit Hickman.

2. Behavior problem, disrupts class, very tall and
skinny, teased Maloney, father changes jobs often.

3. Unstable family, father deserted and returned,

aggressive yet popular, bruise research.

116

4. Comparisons between parents' jobs and education,
home problems in relation to RC and good art grades.

5. Parents incompatible, father aggressive with Stu,
Stu identifies with mother, fears father, beaten by
father and/or mother, grades better during father's
absence.

Fagen—Moore I
l

1. Either one because other is not seen; cross burned;
Nigger-lover. (

2. Two Williams

3. Calls in to get answer.

 

Note: In each case the score for any problem is the level
reached as indicated by the accompanying numbers. In the
cases of Cooper, Lopez, and Maloney the score extended up
to a maximum of five depending on how many of the highest
level solutions were proposed.

APPENDIX B

Appendix B contains the tests composing the selection
battery.

117

 

118

INVENTORY OF BELIEFS

Form T

This inventory consists of 100 statements which range
over a wide variety of topics. As you read each statement
you are asked to indicate quickly your agreement or dis-
agreement with it in terms of the key given at the top of
each page. People have different reactions to these state-
ments. This is not a test in which there are "right" and
"wrong" answers. What is wanted here is your own quick
personal reaction. You should be able to finish taking the
inventory in 20 minutes or less.

In responding to these statements you will notice that
there is no way provided for indicating a neutral position.
It is desired that you indicate a tendency toward either
agreement or disagreement even though you may prefer to
remain undecided. It is important that you respond to
every one of the 100 statements.

When the proctor gives the signal, open your examina-
tion booklet and begin work. The key you are to use is
reproduced at the top of each page. Note that you will
never use the S response on your answer sheet.

Adapted in part from-the Inventory of Beliefs copyrighted
by the Cooperative Study of Evaluation in General Education
of the American Council on Education, 1951.

 

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

119

KEY: A. I strongly agree or accept the statement.
B. I tend to agree or accept the statement.
C. I tend to disagree or reject the statement.
D. I strongly disagree or reject the statement.

Literature should not question the basic moral concepts
of society.

The main thing about good music is lovely melody. I

Lowering tariffs to admit more foreign goods into this
country tends to raise our standard of living.

When things seem black, a person should not complain,
for it may be God's will. i

 

1
Science is infringing upon religion when it attempts to L!
delve into the origin of life itself. ~

Literature which questions the basic moral concepts of
our society is good.

In our present society only a wartime economy can provide
full employment.

A man's conscience is an unreliable guide to right and
wrong.

No task is too great or too difficult when we know that
God is on our side.

A work of art which provides only entertainment is
useless.

A person gets what's coming to him in this life if he
doesn't believe in God.

Young people today are in general more immoral and irre-
sponsible than young people of previous generations.

More playgrounds and fewer strict fathers would elimi-
nate juvenile delinquency.

The many different kinds of children in school these
days force teachers to make a lot of rules and regula-
tions so that things will run smoothly.

Organized labor has done more to further economic pro-
gress than business and industry.

Poverty can be eliminated.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

20.

27.

28.

29.

300
31.

32.

120

KEY: A. I strongly agree or accept the statement.

B. I tend to agree or accept the statement.

C. I tend to disagree or reject the statement.
D. I strongly disagree or reject the statement.

EurOpeans criticize the United States for its material-
ism but such criticism is only to cover up their
realization that American culture is far superior to
their own.

The worst danger to real Americanism during the last
50 years has come from foreign ideas and agitators.

The scientist that really counts is the one Who turns
theories into practical use.

There is only one real standard in judging a novel or
play--that is convey a message of social significance.

Nudist colonies are a threat to the moral life of a
nation. -

Allowing more immigrants of all kinds into this country
will improve our culture.

No world organization should have the right to tell
Americans what they can or cannot do.

Despite the material advantages of today, family life
now is not as wholesome as it used to be.

Raising our standard of living requires government
regulation of business enterprise.

The United States doesn't have to depend on the rest
of the world in order to be strong and self-sufficient.

Foreigners usually have peculiar and annoying habits.
The best assurance of peace is for the United States to
have the strongest army, navy, and air force, as well as
the most atom bombs.

It is only natural and right for each person to think
that his family is better than any other.

Any man can find a job if he really wants to work.

Strikes are caused by the unwillingness of an employer
to meet the needs of his employees.

American films emphasize sex more than foreign films do.

33.

340

35.

36.

37.

38-
39.

40.

41.

42.

43.

44.

45.
46.

47.

48.

49.

121

KEY: A. I strongly agree or accept the statement.
B. I tend to agree or accept the statement.
C. I tend to disagree or reject the statement.
D. I strongly disagree or reject the statement.

Being a successful wife and mother is more a matter of
instinct than of training.

The only way to eliminate prejudice is through force-
ful legislation.

A person often has to get mad in order to push others
into action.

There is only one real standard in judging art works--
each to his own taste.

Business enterprise, free from government interference,
has given us our high standard of living.

There is no art for art's sake.

The existence of poverty is an infallible sign of a
poorly organized society.

Many social problems would be solved if we did not
have so many immoral and inferior people.

Picket lines ought to be respected and never crossed.
You can't do business on friendship: profits are pro-
fits, and good intentions are not evidence in a court
of law.

A person has troubles of his own; he can't afford to
worry about other people.

Books and movies should start dealing with entertaining
or uplifting themes instead of the present unpleasant,
immoral, or tragic ones.

The minds of many youth are being poisoned by bad books.
Speak softly, but carry a big stick.

Military service Should be by Choice rather than by
conscription.

Peace can only be achieved when the United States aban-
dons its attempt to establish military superiority.

Honesty, hard work, and trust in God ensure neither
material nor spiritual rewards.

50.
51.
52.
53.

54-
55.

59-
57.
58.

59.
60.

61.

62,

93.

CL}...
95 .

CE),

122

KEY: A. I strongly agree or accept the statement.
B. I tend to agree or accept the statement.
C. I tend to disagree or reject the statement.
D. I strongly disagree or reject the statement.

Ministers in churches should not preach about economic
and political problems.

Each man is on his own in life and must determine his
own destiny.

The moral good or evil of people has little bearing on
any possible destruction of the world.

The successful merchant can't allow sentiment to affect
his business decisions.

No intelligent man today can really believe in God.

The United States should make no attempt to exercise
control over any world organization.

Ministers who preach socialistic ideas are a disgrace
to the church.

Labor unions don't appreciate all the advantages which
business and industries have given them.

We should impose a strong censorship on the morality of
books and movies.

European criticism of the United States is quite justified.

If we allow more immigrants into this country, we will
lower our standard of culture.

Modern paintings look like something dreamed up in a
horrible nightmare.

The greatest contribution to real Americanism during the
last 50 years has come from the intermingling of foreign
immigrants and native-born.

What a person gets in this life has little to do with
whether he believes in God or not.

Voting determines whether or not a country is democratic..

In our society, a person's first duty is to protect from
harm himself and those dear to him.

Europeans have no faults as bad as the provincial smug-
ness and intolerance of Americans.

97.

68.

69.

70.

71.

'72.

'73.
'74.

'75-

'76.

'77.

778.
799.

8C).

5]..

82.

83.

123

KEY: A. I strongly agree or accept the statement.
B. I tend to agree or accept the statement.
C. I tend to disagree or reject the statement.
D. I strongly disagree or reject the statement.

Members of so-called racial minorities are no more alike
than any other group of American citizens.

A belief in divine guidance is of little help in meet—
ing difficulties.
Those who can, do; those who can't, teach.

Philosphers on the
to ordinary people.

whole act as if they were superior

We would be better off if people would talk less and
work more.

Most intellectuals would be lost if they had to make a
living in the realistic world of business.

Science will eventually explain the origin of life.

A lot of teachers, these days, have radical ideas which
need to be carefully watched.

Now that America is the leading country in the world,
it's only natural that other countries Should try to
be like us.

Prayer does little toward relieving one's problems.

Capital punishment does not serve to lower the crime
rate.

Foreign films emphasize sex more than American films do.

Our rising divorce rate is a Sign that we Should return
to the values which our grandparents held.

Pride in craftsmanship and in doing an honest day's work
is a rare thing these days.

The United States may not have had much experience in
international dealings, but it is the only nation to
which the world can turn for leadership.

A Sexual pervert is an insult to humanity and should
be punished severely.

Labor, since it represents the majority, should be given
a greater voice in a democracy than capital.

84.

85.

86.

87.

88.

89.

90.

91.

92.

93-

94.

95.

96.

97’.

98.

99.

124

KEY: strongly agree or accept the statement.
tend to agree or accept the statement.
tend to disagree or reject the statement.

strongly disagree or reject the statement.

UGUHP
O a

C
HHHH

The actions of the United States in world politics
clearly demonstrate its unfitness for world leadership.

Both beauty and purpose can be found in all modern
paintings.

There may be a few exCeptions, but, in general, members
of a racial group tend to be pretty much alike.

There are too many people in this world Who do nothing
but think about the opposite sex.

Modern people are superficial and tend to lack the finer
qualities of man-hood and womanhood.

It is more important for a book or movie to be realistic
than to be pleasant.

Members of religious sects who refuse to salute the flag
should be punished for their lact of patriotism.

AS young people grow up, they ought to get over their
radical ideas.

The twentieth century has not had leaders with the vision
and capacity of the founders of this country.

Books on tragic and sordid themes help youth to face
the world of reality.

There are a lot of things in this world that will never
be explained by science.

The world will get so bad that some of these times God
will destroy it.

Other countries don't appreciate as much as they should
all the help that America has given them.

It a person is honest, works hard, and trusts God, he
will reap material as well as spiritual rewards.

The welfare of others is more important than one's own
self-interests.

Nothing but profit to our country 'would result from the
relaxation of our present strict immigration laws.

125

KEY: A. I strongly agree or accept the statement.
B. I tend to agree or accept the statement.
C. I tend to disagree or reject the statement.
D. I strongly disagree or reject the statement.

100. No censorship on the presumed morality of books and
movies can be justified.

126
WORD ASSOCIATION

Listed below are twenty-five words that have more than
one meaning. In the Space Following each word, you Should
write down as many of the meanings as you can. The meanings
need not be written out in full; writing down one word will
usually do. For example:

BARK tree, dog, seal, boat

These four words bring to mind three different meanings
for the word BARK: the outer covering of a tree; a certain
noise made by some animals like dogs and seals; and a kind
of boat. Notice that the meanings were not Written out in
full; only some words to remind us of these meanings were
given. This is all you have to do.

Your score will depend both on the number of different
words you write (in the example above this was four) and on
the number of different meanings the words remind us of (in
the example above this was three). So if you had time to
write only two words for BARK, you would choose tree and ppg,
say, rather than ppg_and seal because the former words stand

for one meaning.

When you are sure of What you are to do, you may begin.

1. ARM

 

 

2. BIT

 

 

3. BOLT

 

 

4. CAP

 

 

5. COIL

 

.0

DUCK

 

 

 

FAIR

 

FAST

 

FILE

 

(7(9):)

 

10.

127

GRAVE

 

 

11.

HOST

 

 

12.

LEAF

 

 

13.

MORTAR

 

 

14.

PINK

 

 

15.

PITCH

 

 

lb.

PLANE

 

 

17.

POKE

 

 

18.

POLICY

 

 

19.

PORT

 

 

20.

PUNCH

 

 

21.

RAKE

 

 

22.

SACK

 

 

23.

STRAND

 

 

24.

TACK

 

 

25.

TENDER

 

 

128

POLITICAL POSITION

To the best of your knowledge, what are (were) the
predominant political leanings of your parents? Please
circle the letter corresponding to your answer.

Democractic
Republican
Independent
Other (specify)

 

Politically Speaking, would you consider yourself: (circle)

Quite conservative
Somewhat conservative_
Middle-of—the-road
Somewhat liberal

Quite liberal

Presidential preference

For this item, think back to last November, election eve.
Rank the following four people according to your pref—
erence assuming that they were all eligible candidates

for the presidency. Rank them as you would have preferred
them on that night regardless of whether or not they
actually were nominated by their parties or were elected.
Bank the most preferred as number one, etc.

1) Ronald Reagan
2) Richard Nixon
3) Hubert Humphrey
4) Ted Kennedy

Were the election held today, what would be your pref-
erence? Rank the most preferred as number one, etc.

1) Ronald Reagan
2) Richard Nixon
3) Hubert Humphrey
4) Ted Kennedy

129

ATTITUDE INVENTORY

This questionnaire is composed of 30 statements with

which you will be asked to agree or disagree. For each
statement, respond according to the following key:

(1) True
(2) False

Please proceed through the inventory quickly, and

respond to every item.

1.

1.0.
1.1.

122.

1:3.

fl+.

I like to have a place for everything and everything in
its place.

Some of my friends think that my ideas are impractical,
if not a bit wild.

I don't like to undertake any project unless I have a
pretty good idea how it will turn out.

For most questions there is just one right answer,
once a person is able to get all the facts.

Politically I am probably something of a radical.

Perfect balance is the essence of all good composition.

I prefer to engage in activities from which I can see
definite results rather than those from which no tangible
or objective results are apparent.

I find that a well-ordered mode of life with regular
hours is not congenial to my temperament.

The unfinished and the imperfect often have greater
appeal for me than the completed and the polished.

I like to listen to primitive music.

I have always had goals and ambitions that were imprac-
tical or that seemed impossible for me to realize.

When a teacher lectures on something other than what he
originally announced, I feel uneasy.

Trends toward abstractionism and the distortion of
reality have corrupted much art of recent years.

It bothers me to have different news commentators give
different interpretations of the news.

15.

16.

17.
18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.
24.

25.
26.

27.

28.

29.

3(3.

130
I like to fool around with new ideas, even if they turn
out later to have been a total waste of time.

I don't like to work on a problem unless there is a
possibility of coming out with a clear-cut unambiguous
answer.

I have always hated regulations.

Many of my friends would probably be considered uncon-
ventional by other people.

It doesn't bother me when things are uncertain and
unpredictable.

My way of doing things is apt to be misunderstood by
others.

Facts appeal to me more than ideas.
I have had strange and peculiar thoughts.
I don't like things to be uncertain and unpredictable.

The worst thing an instructor can do is to make very
specific plans for each lesson.

It is a good rule to accept nothing as certain or proved.

I dislike following a set schedule.

Usually, I prefer known ways of doing things rather than

trying out new ways.
I like to go along to visit new and strange places.

I much prefer friends who are pleasant to have around
to those who are always involved in some difficult
problem.

I have had very peculiar and strange experiences.

APPENDIX C

Appendix C contains samples of materials used in openness
training.

131

132

OBJECTIVES

To develop a model of the open person, i.e., to describe
the qualities which are Characteristic of the open person.

To practice using the model of the open person in a
variety of real-life situations.

To Check our degree of mastery of the model through
comparing our performance on a test of openness with the
performance of a sample of persons judged to be extremely

open.

To give some consideration to where each of us currently
stands in relation to the criterion of openness.

i u:m°;r_11

 

F,

133

AN OPEN UNDERGRADUATE

You can probably look back and recall a person who was
influential in shaping your behavior, who, because of certain
qualities, served as a model for you, whose mannerisms you
found yourself mimicing, whose speech inflections you began
to copy. I have a friend, Paul, who was that kind of person.
He entered the university with me as a freshman. We were
assigned to the same suite so I had, as you can imagine, time
to observe him and to talk with him. In the pages that fol-
low I want to share with you some of the things I observed
in Paul so that in reading about him you might gain some of
the same benefits that I gained from living with him and get-
ting to know him intimately.

One thing we must get straight from the beginning. Paul
was no intellectual genius. On the contrary he had an IQ
which fell somewhere around the middle of our entering class.
I would have to assume, therefore, that the success he expe—
rienced was mostly unrelated to intelligence, that it was due
largely to some learned habits, or personality style, or what
have you. I guess what I really want to do is to tell you
about his style.

In this university as in most, it was the custom to give
all entering freshmen a whole battery of aptitude tests. It
was also the custom to release the results to the students
as soon as they were evaluated. You can imagine, therefore,
what many roommates did following release of the results.
They shared and compared scores. Paul was no exception. He
openly and unilaterally told me how he had done. He said he
Showed a rather even pattern of aptitude across biological
and physical sciences, math, humanities, and social sciences.
Nothing exceptional, understand, but respectable. This all
rather embarrassed me because I knew that the next question
would be, "How'd you do?", and I didn't want to tell him.

At that time I was somewhat less than confident of myself and
didn't want to expose myself to public view. It wasn't that

I had done badly. I was actually Slightly higher than Paul

in math and physical and biological sciences though consider-
ably lower in humanities and social sciences. The feared‘
question did come. How had I done? I knew this wasn't a

good way to begin life in the room together but I managed to
get out in some bumbling embarrassed way that I didn't want to
tell him how I did. I expected to get a negative reaction but
it never came. He just said, "OK". I appreciated that. He
was willing to let me do what I wanted without making demands
in return. He didn't try to override my wishes. I might add
that my refusal to share with him didn't affect his behavior
with me one whit. He continued to share openly with

me about all sorts of things; his love affairs, impulses,
fantasies, anxieties and conflicts, academic progress, ad
infinitum. The way he opened himself to me and most other

134

people almost amounted to a declaration of confidence in him-
self. I often reflected on this. He reminded me of James
Weldon Johnson's interpretation of a poem in the Bible where
the Hebrew poet ended each verse with the words "And God saw
what he had made and said 'That's good'". Paul was like that.
He felt he was good and he felt the world was good. It was
only later when I had switched from chemistry to education
that I was able to verbalize this. I know now that all
unconsciously, Paul had grown up largely in the Hebrew philo—
sophical framework, believing in the goodness of life. I in
turn had grown up all unconsciously, under Greek influence
believing that flesh is bad, that only Spirit is good. (Now,
of course, the Greek influence is forgotten and they call it
Puritanism). Anyway, Paul presented an enigma for me. Con-
trary to his open acceptance of his emotions, impulses, and
what not, I repressed all mine. I suffered unexpressible
mental torture over thoughts that shouldn't come to mind,
over unacceptable impulses that forced their way into con-
sciousness. It was only through living with him and modeling
him that I grew to the point where I now find myself experi-
encing a larger degree of freedom and openness.

I must go on to tell you something about the university
program because Paul's and my reactions to it will give you
some further insight into our contrasting styles. The pro-
gram was about as unstructured as you can imagine. You were
to choose your area of Specialization from five broad areas,
from that point on the options were rather broad. Paul chose
social science and I chose physical science. The courses you
took within your area were pretty much a matter of your
choice. Whether or not you chose to go to class was your own
business. Assignments as we normally think of them were non-
existent. Each student chose his own way to the goal. The
university's part was limited to providing learning aids and
to administering comprehensive exams at the year's end. It
was strictly up to each student to organize his schedule so
as to pass comps. You could TGIF every day if you wanted
and no one would say a thing. If I tell you that the system
Scared the hell out of me then you Should automatically be
able to guess Paul's reaction to it. He thrived on it. He
set up a general schedule but was extremely flexible in fol-
lowing it. His interests were varied. He was forever going
new places, exploring new areas, getting involved in extra-
curricular activities. As a result he developed a broad and

varied circle of friends.

One of his chief side interests came to be painting.
He did a good job of it too. One of the things which impressed
me about his painting was that you felt he had really
"grasped" his subject in its full richness and detail.

His painting in a sense gave a clue to his whole orienta-
tion toward the environment. He was alive to everything
around him. It was as though he had sense organs all around

135

him and that he "reached out" and took in all the details
that most people miss. He not only took it in but seemed to
enjoy it all thoroughly. He was what I would call "alive"
to the environment.

His relationships with people seemed to demonstrate the
same absorbing interest. I always felt when talking with him
that I had his full attention. He never made me feel by
blank stares, or by looking past me, or by shuffling papers
and feet that he wasn't listening or that he would rather be
doing something else. On the contrary, if he did want to
do something else or if he did have something else on his
mind he would say so. Sometimes his frankness bothered me
but I now consider it a matter of courtesy. As a result of
his interest in interacting with people, he was able to recall
details of conversations months later. I am convinced that
this was not a "public relations" trick which he cultivated
assiduously but was rather a natural result of his sincere
interest in people.

I may be giving the impression that Paul was too "nice".
It may be that I'm exaggerating. I doubt it though. People
like him come one in a hundred. Be that as it may, I shall
try to fill out the picture. I have already said that Paul
accepted his impulses and acted on them. This was as true
of anger and aggression as it was of affiliation and friend-
ship. He was fiercely defensive of his autonomy and
independence. He permitted neither parent nor president to
step on these Without retaliation. He did not usually go
around punching noses but he was not averse to using tongue
and pen. (Thanks to Dr. Freud we now have a name for that;
sublimation, I believe). He Seemed to view authority figures
as over-protective or over-possessive. Thus as you see he .
was not "nice" so much as he was realistic and honest. He
kept his impulses, his values, and his perception of reality
in delicate but stable balance.

One of the side benefits of this way of responding to
the unstructured university world was a low level of anxiety
and conflict. He probably would have preferred some anxiety
in this situation to no anxiety in a completely structured
one. His fear of the impending comprehensives was at a rea-
sonable level.

You could count on me as having reacted in a very dif-
ferent way to this unstructured environment. There were times
When I would have dropped out of School if it had not been
for Paul's encouragement. My anxiety level was very high at
times. I wanted my advisor to tell me what to do but he
refused. He would only give me some very general guide-lines.
My concern was so high that I am sure I was relatively closed
'up to much of the environment around me. I could only think
of comps. I didn't make a lot of friends and the ones I made
served more as supports for my needs than as true friends in

as give and take relationship.

136

You can easily see that to begin with at least, Paul and
I were quite different. This basic difference carried over
into our approach to failure. Things that would have practi-
cally destroyed me only gave Paul a brief halt. Once he was
deeply infatuated with a real beauty on campus. He had com-
mitted himself to her heart and soul and had finally pinned
her. The night she took his pin he returned to the dorm his
usual expressive, dramatizing self only more so. At this
point one might have called him exhibitionistic. He danced,
he sang, he even demonstrated with my pillow how he had
embraced her after she took the pin and how he was going to
greet her the next night. The next night she returned the
pin and he came straight back to the dorm. He was crushed.
His pain and disappointment were as obvious then as his
elation had been the night before. In spite of that, a week
later he was beginning to date someone else. I have followed
him since and have learned that this ability to pick up and
start over again following failure is typical of him.

The two of us found out quickly that we differed in
political persuasion, he being a Republican and I a Democrat.
In discussions of political issues I was always at a dis-
advantage. I couldn't resist his arguments. I couldn't have
told you then why it was but I know now. It was because he
knew as much about my position as he knew about his own. I,
in turn, was only poorly acquainted with my position and
not at all familiar with his. He knew equally well exactly
in what sense the positions were different. Further, he was
well informed about socialism, communism, as well as other
political systems. Yet, though he blew me off the field in
argumentation and though he disagreed fervently with me on
the major issues, he never made agreement with him a con_
dition of friendship.

He had another admirable quality. He was flexible. He
adapted easily to new information. His position was con-
stantly being updated and fortified by new imputs. He seemed
to be aware of the fact then that I have only been coming to
realize recently, that life is a process, going on but never
arriving. To tell the truth, I think he preferred it that
way.

There is only one other thing I want to tell you about
Paul. That is that he was especially given to defending the
part of the underdog. There was a time when the university
administration was using all its influence to get the road
commission to build a new freeway directly between campus
and an encroaching ghetto. This was directly contrary to
Paul's idea of what should be done. He felt that the uni-
versity should make a concerted effort to aid the ghetto
people in attempts to improve the area. He appeared at an
open commission meeting to oppose university policy. He also
wrote articles for the campus paper in behalf of his ideas.

137

His idealism has led him into many such activities.
This is consistent with an early predisposition. In our
freshman year he expressed a vocational preference that would
involve him primarily in work involving direct contact with
people. Today he is working effectively as a social worker.

I started out by saying that Paul had a particular
style. Let's name it openness. You can see that it has
many ways of expressing itself in behavior. Some would say
that this open behavior is due to some underlying personality
variable. Others would say that it Ds simply an integrated
system of habits. Call it what you want, I find it to be very
very effective. I have learned a more open style and find
that it has provided a number of benefits. See if you can
guess what they are.

138
MODEL OF OPENNESS

What kinds of behavior characterize the open person?
What is he like? Here, as is often the case in such matters,
it is convenient to ”divide" the person into his private self
and his public self. We wish to discuss both the person as
he is inside the boundaries provided by his skin as well as
the person in his relation to the world of external objects.
The picture given here is a composite of models offered by
Schachtel; Stern, Stein, and Bloom; Rokeach; Combs and
Maslow.

First, then, what is the open person like "inside"?
One thing that each person has to do is to come to terms
with, to develop some mode of response to, the biological
impulses with which he is genetically endowed, such as sex,
affiliation, hunger, etc. The open person's characeristic
response is to accept hislimpulses as good and act on thcamfl
He allows them expression either directly or in sublimated
form through, for example, poetry, painting, music. But
he does not allow his impulses to predominate. Rather he
keeps them in balance with the demands of reality and with
the demands of his value system. It is in this Sense that
he is a balanced person.

The open person has a strong sense of self, as being one
distinct and separate from the environment. He engages in
introspection and self-appraisal. His view of himself tends
to be positive and accurate. He can see himself objectively
as others see him. He likes himself, sees himself as worthy,
as adequate, as wanted, aS being identified with others.
Since he has nothing he wants to hide he tends to be self—
revealing, self-dramatizing. He allows others to See himself
as he is.

The open person is more likely to be free of personality
pathology. He will suffer, as do all of us, from anxiety
but his anxiety will tend to be more focused. He can there-
fore more easily verbalize it, label it, and thus work towards
its dissipation. His conflicts are likewise conscious and
verbalized. He iS less likely to need psychiatric counseling
but if he needs it he will go get it rather than pretend that
nothing is wrong.

He will occasionally fail in an undertaking but if he
does he has the capacity to pick up and start over again.
He is adept at overcoming personal weakness. His behavior
is plastic and flexible. He can easily adapt to changed
circumstances. He is capable of sustained effort for remote
goals.

The open person has an entirely internalized value system.
Thus he does not go around quoting authorities such as "mama
says" or Amy pastor says" but says, rather, "I believe".

139

So much for what we might call the open person's per—
sonality system. Let us talk now about his cognitive
belief system. Let us think of this system as that mass
of data which makes up the person's view of the world.

How is it organized? One principle of organization which
applies here is ”integration". All the bits of data are
integrated, that is, are related logically and harmonically
with one another and with the higher order primitive organ-
izing principles. These data are in communication with one
another rather than being organized into non-communicating
compartments as, for instance, one compartment for science
and another for religion. This means that new information
inputs are free to affect the total cognitive organization
and appropriate adjustments can thus be made. In short,
the open person is highly adaptive.

We can also think of any person's cognitive system as
containing some disbelief sub-systems, that is, some things
he does not believe. For instance, if he believes the Repub—
lican political philosophy, he probably disbelieves the
Democratic, the Socialistic, and other political philosophies.
What characterizes the relation between the open person's
belief and disbelief systems is the high degree of differen-
tiation between and among belief and disbelief systems. In
plain English, he knows quite clearly how what he believes
in differs from what he disbelieves. Furthermore, it means
that he is about as well versed in what he disbelieves as he
is in what he believes. If he is Christian, he is well
acquainted with the details of Christian theology and history
but he is also well acquainted with Judaism, Mohammedanism,
etc. While he believes in, and is committed to, a particular
belief system, he is highly accepting of people who are
committed to systems different from his own.

A second question with which we wanted to deal was that
of the way the open person relates to the world of external
objects. The most general statement we could make is that
he is characterized by an intense interest in his environ-
ment, a turning toward the environment which is noteworthy
for its totality and its affirmativeness.

Some people see things out there principally as objects
of use, objects to gratify one's needs. Not so the open per-
son. He is more interested in the object as a thing in
inself. He notices the richness of the qualities of the
object. This kind of approach to the object, whether it be
a person or some inanimate thing, iS absolutely indispensable
for painter and poet. In fact, among painters and poets and
other such persons we are likely to encounter some of the
world's most open people. '

So much for the Open person's relation to the environment
in general. The relation to which we now turn is the relation

140

between the open person and other persons. We find that he
places great importance on interpersonal relationships.
Since he Operates from the base of a secure self he is able
to and predominantly interested in carrying on transactions
with other people. Given that he does value himself and
since in general he feels free to express impulse and emo—
tion, he expresses aggression freely against any who threaten
his autonomy and independence. This applies largely to
authority figures whom he sees realistically, frequently

as over-protective and over-possessive. He is likely to
express ambivalence toward parents. Nevertheless, he
generally maintains good contact and rapport with others.

He is sensitive to and concerned with how things seem to
others and he uses this as a basis for his own behavior.

He sees other people generally as friendly, enhancing, and
worthy, as possessing integrity and dignity, as dependable,
as potentially fulfilling and enhancing of Self. He identi-
fies with the underdog. He has a capacity for dramatic,
idealistic social action.

Finally, there seem to be a few characteristics of the
open person which do not fit neatly into the two point
organization of this resume. One is the fact that he seems
to get along comfortably with, and maybe even prefers,
ambiguity. He doubts pat answers to complex issues. He
sees life as a process of becoming rather than as the achieve-
ment of a settled state. He sees the world as a friendly
place. He looks forward to the future as exciting and full
of wonderful possibilities. He feels adequate to cope with
life. He is less likely than the closed person to lose Inm-
self in the "one great true cause" in hopes of bolstering
up a faltering ego. He seeks friendships with people with
varying points of view. He relies on rational authority.

He rejects so—called absolute authorities of all types in-
cluding books, persons, and institutions. He resists
”partyline" changes in belief. He relies on his own percep-
tion of the facts to tell him where truth lies.

141

STERN, STEIN AND BLOOM

The open person seemed to be represented by:

1. Highly personalized and individualized social
relationships
. Pervasive rejection of authority figures
3. Spontaneous and acceptant impulse life
. Non-conforming flexibility in behavior

ROGERS

A major observation is that the individual moves toward
being open to his experience. This is a phrase which has
come to have increasingly definite meaning for me. It is
the polar opposite of defensiveness. Defensiveness I have
described in the past as being the organism's response to
experiences which are perceived or anticipated as incongru-
ent with the structure of the self. In order to maintain
the self-structure, such experiences are given a distorted
symbolization in awareness, which reduces the incongruity.
Thus, the individual defends himself against any threat of
alteration in the concept of self by not perceiving those
meanings in his experience which contradict his present
self-picture.

In the person who is open to his experience, however,
every stimulus, whether orginating within the organism or in
the environment, would be freely relayed through the nervous
system without being distorted by a defensive mechanism.
There would be no need of the mechanism of "subception"
whereby the organism is forewarned of any experience threaten-
ing to the self. On the contrary, whether the stimulus was
the impact of a configuration of form, color or sound in the
environment on the sensory nerves, or a memory trace from
the past, or a visceral sensation of fear or pleasure or
disgust, the person would be "living it," would have it
completely available to awareness.

ROKEACH

The more open one's belief system, the more should
evaluating and acting on information proceed independently
on its own merits, in accord with the inner structural re-
quirements of the situation. Also, the more open the belief
SYStem, the more should the person be governed in his actions
by internal self—actualizing forces and the less by irrational

142

inner forces. Consequently, the more should he be able to
resist pressures exerted by external sources to evaluate and
to act in accord with their wishes. One important implica—
tion here is that the more open the person's belief system,
the more strength should he have to resist externally imposed
reinforcements, or rewards and punishments. These should be
less effective as determinants of the way information will

be evaluated and acted upon.

APPENDIX D

Appendix D contains ANOVA tables and a correlation
matrix supplementary to data contained in the text.

143

THREE-WAY FACTORIAL ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE

144

TABLE D-l

OF DOGMATISM SCORES (N=60)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Source df MS F p
Treatments 2 684.65 .99.. .38
Seeking Style 1 7684.02, 11.12 .002
Cueing 1 132.02 .19 .66
T X S ‘ 2 97.12 .14 .87
T x C 2 763.72 1.11 .34
S x C 1 .15 .00 .99
T x S X C 2 23.45 .03 .97
Error 48 691.06
TABLE D-2
THREE-WAY FACTORIAL ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
OF PROBLEM SENSITIVITY SCORES
Source df MS F ,gp
Treatments 2 49.65 .18 .83
Seeking Style 1 60.00 .22 .64
Cueing 1 38.40 .14 .71
T x S 2 256055 094 .40
T x C 2 1231.55 4.50 .02
S x C 1 3.27 .01 .91
T x S x C 2 125.32 .46 .64
Error 48 273.58

 

145

TABLE D-3

THREE-WAY FACTORIAL ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
OF GENERAL INQUIRY SCORES (N=60)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Source df MS F p
Treatments 2 433.02 .68 .51
Seeking Style 1 268.82 .42 .52
Cueing 1 104.02 .16 .69
T x S 2 202.12 22 . 2 .72
T x C 2 2208.32 3. 7 .
S x C 1 74.82 .12 .73
T x S X C 2 7g.02 .12 .89
Error 48 63 .83
TABLE D-4
THREE-WAY FACTORIAL ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
OF SHIFTS/TIME SCORES (N=60)
Source df MS F ,p
Treatments 2 .08 .83 .44
Seeking Style 1 .06 .64 .43
Cueing 1 .04 .41 .53
T x S 2 .14 1.48 .24
T x C 2 .16 1.65 .20
S x C 1 .40 4.09 .05
T x S x C 2 .03 .32 .72
Error 48 .10

 

146

TABLE D-5

COMPARISON OF OPENNESS GROUP VS.

CONTROL GROUP FOR TIME

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Source df MS F p

Treatments 1 4243.60 3.88 .05
Seeking Style 1 828.82 .76 .39
Cueing 1 410.82 .38 .54
T x s 1 122.50 .11 .74
T X C 1 902.50 .82 037
S X C 1 476.02 .43 .51
T X S X C 1 0.00 0.00 1.00
Error 48 1094.97 ‘

TABLE D-6
COMPARISON OF OPENNESS GROUP VS.
CONTROL GROUP FOR BITS

Source df MS F p

Treatments 1 9765.63 3.80 .06
Seeking Style 1 660.02 .26 .61
Cueing 1 190.82 .07 .79
T x S 1 2512.23 .98 .33
T X C 1 4347.23 1.69 .20
S X C 1 2954.02 1.15 .29
T X S X C 1 4906.23 1.91 .17
Error 48 2572.91

 

147

 

TABLE D-7
INTERCORRELATIONS AMONG ALL VARIABLES, N=6O

GPA 1
Beliefs 2 21
Complexity 3 O6 62
Politics 02 58 29
Word Association 5 22 37 36 20 ‘
Dogmatism 6 -O9 -59 -29 -38 00
Dogmatism (Neg.) 7 O6 52 24 39 -05 —96
Dogmatism (Dev.) 8 -O4 21 17 10 18 —31 18
P.S. Steps 9 16 23 O9 02 15 -38 4O 19
P.S. Quality 10 29 09 18 14 06 -27 28 -06
Bits 11 -05 14 14 14 19 -07 10 -05
Time 12 -09 02 13 05 14 -08 14 -12
Total Sources 1 22 12 -04 OO 35 -11 13 _14
Mean Sources 1 28 O3 -10 -05 26 -O6 O6 -15
Shifts 15 -02 07 01 O7 11 -06 08 -07
Problems 16 24 02 -O4 -O4 14 -O7 O5 -O9
Competence 17 15 02 -02 —O5 18 -12 11 00
Mean Competence 18 24 -04 -08 -13 13 -08 O7 -O9
M.S.U. Reading 19 53 26 14 04 40 -09 00 07
CQT Verbal 20 45 24 O9 O9 21 -10 O7 -05
CQT Information 21 34 13 —01 O8 18 16 -14 —26
CQT Numerical 22 33 06 -O4 07 19 01 01 -18
CAT Total 23 49 20 -02 11 26 01 -01 -19
General Inquiry 24 24 O7 -02 -O4 26 -12 11 -O9
Bits/Time 25 28 -01 -14 -04 -01 01 -O8 05
Shifts/Time 26 O6 15 O6 14 05 -05 O4 07
Problems/Time 27 O6 04 08 O5 -01 -02 00 -O3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

148

TABLE D—7 (Continued)

1
2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10 50

11 31 16

12 24 48 54

13 36 39 65 53
14 33 37 56 48 84

15 31 24 90 47 75 68

16 19 33 41 41 60 52 51

17 28 39 21 35 39 29 33 63

18 22 33 00 20 25 38 09 37 71

19 -05 03 11 -02 25 26 06 36 27 32
20 O9 00 O9 -O3 20 16 02 29 37 09
21 01 -02 06 -04 08 05 -06 22 13 10
22 06 16 O7 -10 27 41 12 18 18 24
23 08 06 10 -07 25 28 04 31 14 18
24 33 45 51 52 79 66 64 89 81 54
25 -05 -10 -18 -56 -01 -04 -05 49 29 21
26 12 -23 55 -37 17 10 48 04 -11 -19
27 17 03 64 -12 48 42 79 32 17 -00

 

20 73

21 57 56

22 39 23 36

23 75 82 80 68

24 35 22 17 25 28

25 33 26 25 20 31 31

26 12 10 11 11 14 04 36

27 06 00 -04 18 07 39 35 81

 

19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

APPENDIX E

Appendix E contains the complete raw data for all
subjects.

149

150

ebmbm mIH

 

macmmsd Hs<oswonw zoom Uomsmdwms

zcseme om» ow moppowm nosewoxpdk wOHP¢HOm >mmoonaHos mm:
H mom mm ow Hm Hm» Hum
m mun mm Hm Ho 0mm How
w mmo em Ho om How Hm:
: mom mH HH Hm com Hmw
m mmo mm wm Hm Ho: How
0 mmo mm Hp Hm pom pom
V NHm mo op HN one me
w New mo cm on coo are
m moo mm m: pm How com
Ho mwo mm om Hp com opp
HH mmo mo pm He pom com
cw wwm mo Hm Pu pom me
Hw mm: m: Hm om 0mm you
He moH mp pm pm cow Hun
Hm mow 0: Ha Hm com Hum
Hm moo mm we Hm Heo Hwo
He who mo so am Hem 0mm
Hm mpo mm Hm Hm pom me
Hm up: up He Hm ppm omw
mo wmm mm Ho Hm 0mm Hpo
m» wwm mp ow Hp Hmm wa
mm mmo mm Hp Hw Hum omH
mw can mp Hm om ppm Hmm
we umo so on cu Ho: Hmo
Nu mmo cu Hm Hg HHS cow
mo ago so ow Hm pom Ham
mu mmo mm m: pm 000 HMH
mm mww mm pm pm HHQ HRH
we ewe mm Hm Hm Hoe can
we mmm mm H om omo Hum

151

a>wbm MIH

 

mascose Hs<m5aoe< Zone UomsmnHms
zssooe mm» ow onHowm ooapHoxHek wOHHnHom >mmoon¢HOs mos
wH uca mm mo Hm HmH Hm:
um How mm H: Hm HH: Hm:
ww mmo we Hm om Ho: Hum
we mHo mm Hm Hw HHw Hmm
mm mmm as He He HmH Hp:
mm New mu mm Hg HHu Hem
up mum um NH Hp Hmm HmH
mm New mo mo Hm Hmo HoH
up umw cw Hm H: Ho: 0mm
to mam mm mo Ho Hmu Huw
eH NH: em on Hw Hoo Hum
cw mum or NH Hm Ho: own
:8 SH“ mo Ho H: om: He:
2: wHo mo Hm op 0mm Hmm
em moo mo Hm om HHH Hum
rm mrH up we Hm HHu Hmm
cw Ho: m: ow Hm Hoe Hmw
em mmo m: Hm Hm com Hz:
to mwu em om Hm HH: Hum
mo mmo mm Hm Hm Hmm HwH
mH mac mm Hm Hm com HeH
mm mmo cm Hm Hp HHm Hom
mw wom mo NH Hm Hmw 000
m: mmm um NH Hw HHm HHm
mm New em oo oo Hmm Hue
mm muH no HV H: HHm HH:
ms www mH HH HH Hoo Hem
mm meo no mo Hm Hm: HmH
mo moo e: Hu 0: Hem HmH
mo mmo SH mm Hp Hm: 0mm

152

e>wbm mum

 

weodes weodes
macacsd mOH<Hsm moH<Hsm eoamw 3005
259000 dem ooseeamsoe dem aHsm moseoem moseoem musdm
H H0 0.: 00H H:H 00 0.0 H00
0 00 0.0 H00 H00 00 0.0 000
0 00 0.m H00 H:0 00 0.0 H:0
: 00 0. 000 H00 0: 0.H 000
0 00 0.0 HOH H00. :0 :.0 000
0 0: 0.0 H00 HHO :: 0.0 000
0 HH 0.0 H0H 000 00 0.0 000
0 00 0.0 H00 H00 :0 0.0 000
0 00 0.: H00 H00 :0 0.H H00
H0 00 0.0 H00 H00 :0 :.0 H00
HH H0 0.: HOH H00 :0 0.H H00
H0 H0 0.0 H00 H0: :0 0.0 000
H0 H: 0.0 H00 HHO 00 0.0 HOH
H: H0 0.: 00: H00 :0 :.0 000
H0 00 0.0 H00 HOH 00 0.0 H00
H0 00 0.0 000 H00 00 0.H HOH
H0 H0 0.: H00 000 00 0.0 00H
H0 HH 0.0 000 000 :: :.: H:H
H0 00 H.H H00 H00 :0 :.0 000
00 H0 0.0 H00 HHO 00 0.0 H00
0H 0: 0.0 H00 HHO 0H 0.0 H00
00 00 0.0 H0H HOH 00 0.0 H00
00 H0 0.0 000 H00 00 0.0 000
0: 00 0.0 0:0 H00 0: 0.: 000
00 H0 0.0 000 H00 00 0.: 0:0
00 00 0.0 000 H00 0H 0.H H00
00 00 0.: H0: H00 0H 0.: H0:
00 H0 0.0 000 H00 0: 0.0 0H:
00 00 0.H H00 000 :: :.: 000
00 H: 0.0 H00 HHO 00 0.0 HH:

153

e>wbm mum

 

weoewos weoewma

mesaesd mOH<Hsm mOH<Hsm aoamw gems

223000 dem noseeaesoe wHam eHse moseocm monsoom musam
0H 00 0.0 000 H00 00 0.0 H00
00 00 o.: 000 H0: :0 0.: 000
0 HH 0.: H00 HOH :o :.: 000
0 o: 0.0 H00 000 00 :.0 00H
00 00 0.0 H00 000 :0 :.0 000
00 00 0.0 000 HHO 00 :.0 H0:
00 00 0.: H00 H00 00 0.0 H00
00 H0 0.0 000 H:0 00 0.0 H00
00 HH 0.0 H00 000 :H :.H 000
:0 H0 0.0 000 H00 00 0.0 000
:H 00 0.0 H00 00H W0 :.0 000
:0 00 0.0 H0H 000 0 0.0 000
:0 HH 0.0 H00 HHH 00 0.0 H00
:: 0: 0.: 000 H0: 00 0.0 H00
:0 00 0.0 H00 HHH :0 0.0 HOH
:0 00 0.0 000 H:0 00 0.0 H00
:0 00 0.H 000 H00 :0 0.H H00
:0 00 0.H HOH 00H :0 0.0 000
:0 00 0.0 H:0 H00 00 0.: 000
00 H0 0.: 0:0 H00 00 0.0 000
0H Ho 0.: H:0 000 00 0.0 00:
00 00 0.H 00o Ho: 00 0.0 HOH
00 00 0.: 000 H00 00 0.0 H00
0: 00 0.0 0H0 H:H 00 0.0 HH:
00 HH 0.: 0N0 H00 0 0.0 H:0
00 H0 0.0 H H H00 0 0.: 000
00 00 0.: H00 H00 0: 0.: H00
00 00 0.0 H00 H0: 0: 0.: H00
00 00 0.0 H00 H0: 00 0.0 000
00 00 H.o HOH HOH 00 0.0 H:0

154

a>mbm mlu

 

vaccwma
masmmsd wnodw0s 3005 wHam\ m3H000\ m0SmH0H<Hd%\

2:3000 m0SmH0H<HdK 0080000500 ooabcdesoc eHsm aHao eHse
H 000 00 0.0 H:0 HHH 000
0 000 00 0.0 000 00H 000
0 HH0 00 0.0 H00 000 000
: 000 00 0.0 H00 H00 00H
0 000 00 0.0 H0: 000 000
0 000 00 0.0 000 000 000
0 000 00 0.0 H00 000 H00
0 00: 0H 0.H 000 000 0::
0 00H 0: 0.: HOH H00 00:
Ho 00H 00 0.0 Ho: 000 000
HH 000 00 0.0 H0: 000 000
H0 000 0H 0.0 H00 000 000
H0 00H 00 0.0 H00 HHo 000
H: 000 00 0.0 H00 H00 0:0
H0 000 00 0.0 H00 000 0:0
H0 00: 0: 0.: HOH 00H O00
H0 000 00 0.0 HOH om: 000
H0 000 0H 0.0 0H0 H:0 O00
H0 000 00 0.0 000 000 o:H
mo 000 0H 0.H H0: H:0 000
NH H00 00 0.H H:0 HHH 000
00 000 00 0.0 H:0 HOH 00H
00 H00 00 0.0 H00 H00 000
0: 000 00 0.0 000 H00 00H
00 H00 0H 0.H H00 H:0 000
00 000 0: 0.0 H00 00H 000
00 000 00 0.0 H0: H0: 000
00 H00 0: 0.: HOH H0: 00:
00 00H 0: 0.0 H00 000 000
00 000 0H 0.0 H00 HoH 000

155

e>wbm mum

 

weoewms
0000000 weooHes zoos 0Hem\ msHHHm\ moSmHeH<H00\
255000 m050H0H<H0K, oospmd0soe cospcdesoc aHsm eHs0 eHS0
0H H0: 00 0.0 H:0 0m0 000
00 00: 00 0.0 000 0 0 000
0 000 00 0.0 H0: 00: 000
0 000 0: 0.: H:0 000 000
00 000 00 0.0 H00 000 000
00 000 00 0.0 H00 H00 000
00 000 00 0.H H:0 00: 000
00 00: 0H 0.H H00 H00- 000
00 0:0 0H 0.0 H00 00H 000
:0 000 00 0.0 H0: H:0 0:0
:H 000 H0 0.H H:0 HOH 0:H
:0 000 0: 0.: H0: 000 000
:0 00H 00 0.0 HOH H:: 000
:: 000 00 0.0 H0: H00 000
:0 000 0H 0.0 H:0 00H 000
:0 H0H 00 0.0 HOH H0: 000
:0 000 0H 0.0 HOH HOH 000
:0 000 H0 H.0 H00 000 0:0
:0 000 00 0.H H00 000 000
00 000 00 0.0 H00 H00 000
0H 000 00 0.0 H0: H00 000
00 000 00 0.0 00H H0: 000
00 000 0: 0.0 0H0 HOH 00H
0: 000 00 0.0 H0: 00H 000
00 000 00 0.0 H00 000 000
00 000 00 0.0 HOH 000 000
00 000 00 0.0 HHO 000 000
00 0:0 0H 0.0 H00 000 000
00 00: 00 0.0 H00 000 000
00 000 00 0.0 HHO 000 0:0

156

H>wbm ml:

 

mdsomsd omsmde 3m: 00% nee 089 006
258608 HancHwK wmmoHnm <mddmw HSdeadeos zsadeomH Hede
H H0 0: :0 0H :0 H:0
0 H0 00 00 :0 mm H00
m H00 00 00 mo 00 H00
H00 00 0H :0 0H H00
0 H00 mo 00 :: mm HOH
m HOH 0: :: we 00 H00
0 H:0 00 00 00 0: H00
m H0: 0: mm mm H0 H00
0 me 00 :0 :0 mm HHO
Ho H w 0: mm 0: 0H How
HH Hmm 0H 00 00 00 How
H0 HHO 00 00 :0 :0 H:0
H0 Hmm 0: :0 :H :: Huw
H: H:H H0 0: :0 00 000
H0 H:0 0: 00 :0 H0 000
H0 H:0 00 00 00 :0 HOH
H0 H0: 00 m: :H 00 HOH
H0 HH0 00 00 00 00 000
Ho HOH 00 0: :0 H0 H00
00 H00 00 00 :H :0 H:H
0H Hmm :H 00 0H :0 Hum
mm HOH mo 00 00 00 HHO
00 H00 00 0o :0 00 H00
0: HOH 0: :0 :: :: H00
00 H00 :0 00 00 00 H00
00 Hmo mm mm w 00 HHO
00 Hum 0H 00 0 H0 H0:
wm H0: 00 0: 0: 00 H00
00 H0H 00 no :0 H0 H00
00 H00 0: 0m 00 mo HHH

156

e>wbm ml:

 

mdsmmsd mammme zmc 006 03a 000 000
258003 HanstK wmeHsm, <mddmw HSdesmnHos zcadeomH gadmw
H H0 0: :0 0H :0 H:0
0 H0 00 00 :0 00 H00
w H00 00 00 mo 00 H00
H00 00 0H :0 0H H00
0 H00 00 00 :: 00 HOH
0 HOH 0: :: 00 00 H00
0 H:0 00 00 00 0: H00
0 H0: 0: 00 00 H0 H00
0 Hmm 00 :0 :0 00 HHO
Ho H 0 0: mm 0: 0H How
HH H00 0H 00 00 00 H00
H0 HHO 00 m0 :0 :m H:0
H0 H00 0: 0 :H :: H00
H: H:H H0 0: :0 00 000
H0 H:0 0: 00 :0 H0 000
H0 H:0 00 00 00 :0 HOH
H0 H0: 00 0: :H 00 HOH
Hm HH0 00 00 00 00 000
H0 HOH 00 0: :0 H0 H00
mo H00 00 00 :H :0 H:H
0H H00 :H 00 0H :0 H00
00 HOH mo 00 00 0o HHO
00 H00 00 0o :0 00 H00
0: HOH 0: :0 :: :: H00
00 H00 :0 00 00 00 H00
00 H00 00 00 0 00 HHO
00 H00 0H 00 0 H0 H0:
00 H0: 00 0: 0: 00 H00
00 H0H 00 0o :0 H0 H00
00 H00 0: 00 00 0o HHH

157

e>wbm ml:

 

0050050 omsmde 30: 009 nae 006 000
255000 Hschdz wmeHsm <mddmww‘ HadeBmeos zsameomH goamw
0H H0: :0 0 00 :0 H00
00 H0: 00 0 :o 00 H00
00 H:0 H0 00 00 0H 000
0: H00 00 00 :H 0H HHo
00 H0: 00 0: :0 0H HOH
00 HOH 0H 0: :0 00 H00
00 H:0 :0 0H 00 :0 H00
00 H00 00 0H 00 H0 Ho:
00 Ho: 0H 00 :0 H0 HHO
:0 H00 :0 0: :0 00 H:0
:H 000 00. 0: :H 00 H00
:0 HHO 00 00 :0 0: H:0
:0 H00 0: 0: :0 00 H00
:: H00 00 00 :0 00 HOH
:0 H0: 00 00 00 0o H00
:0 H00 00 00 :0 H0 H00
:0 HHO 00 0H 00 0H H00
:0 000 0H :0 :0 00 H00
:0 H00 00 0: :0 00 H00
00 H0: 0H :0 00 00 H00
0H H00 00 00 00 :: H0:
00 H00 00 0: :0 00 HHO
00 H:0 :o 0: 0H 0: H:0
0: HOH 00 :H :: H0 H00
00 HOH 00 00 0o 00 H::
00 H:0 0H :0 :0 0H HHO
00 H00 00 0: :: 0: H00
00 HHO 00 00 :: 0o HHO
00 H00 00 00 :0 00 H00
00 HOH 00 00 :o 00 HOH

158

a>mbm m|0

 

macamzd mmHHme
209000 mmHHmwm H mmHHmwm HH nsmsmm

H

0

0 :0 0: 00
: 0H 00 H:
0 00 0: H0
0

‘N

0

0

Ho 00 00 H0
HH
H0

H0
H: 0H 0H Ho
H0

H0 00 00 0:
H0

H0 00 0: 00
H0 00 0: 0:
0o

0H

00

00 0H 00 HH
0:

00 00 00 00
00

00

00

00

00

159

0050030
258000

0H
00

00HH000 H

0H

00

0:

0o

0:

00

00

0H
00

0H

e>wbm mum

mewmwm HH

00

00

00
0o
0H
0:
00
00

0:
0o

00HH000
osmpm0

00

ON

00

Ho

O0

O0

00

o:

00
oH

160

ebwbm mum

 

0050030 000stm
253000 a0mHsHsm 000H0 050Hpm

H o H H
0 o H o
0 0 H o
: 0 H H
0 0 o H
0 o H H
0 o H H
0 H H H
0 o o H
Ho 0 H H
HH H o H
H0 H o 0
H0 H H o
H: 0 H 0
H0 0 o H
H0 0 o H
H0 0 o 0
H0 0 H 0
H0 0 o 0
00 H H 0
0H H o o
00 H o o
00 0 H H
0: H H o
00 0 o H
00 H H H
00 o H o
00 H o H
00 o H o
o H 0

0500000 H0050H0Hom0Hos 00K

a0mHsHsm u onnoa000H
Hu00o0H0a 00H<Hsm
Nuowmssmmm

000stm u ouUHmH000HomH

00<H0 HHUH0m00Ho
o50Hsm I ono500
Hu200 0500

161

0050030
253000

00

O\U‘\\JIU\\11U\U‘\
O\O (D‘Q O\\J\ {-7

a0mH3H3N

NHNNOONOP—‘NF—‘l—‘NHI—‘i—‘NONOOONOI—‘ONl—‘HO

0000H3m
00%H0

Ol—‘Ol—‘Ol—‘OOOl—‘Ol—‘Hl—‘OHI—‘HOHOOOOOOOHOO

8>wbm mum

050H3m

l—‘l—‘OHOHOOOi—‘OI—‘OOI—‘l—‘OOOI—‘Hl—‘l—‘Ol—‘HOOHO

0500000 H0030H0Hom0Ho3 x00

e0mH3H3m u 0n003000H
Hn00o0H05 00H<H3m
0n000330mm

000wH3m u ouuHmH000HomH

00%H0 Hu0H0m00Ho
050H3m u 0n0500
Hu200 0500