E .‘L’AIU'QI A ‘5.- .. . >. . ‘L;fi_' ...— ..-i ‘ This is to certify that the thesis entitled THE DEVELOPMENT AND VALIDATION OF AN OBJECTIVE MEASURE OF NEED FOR SAFETY presented by William Boyd Tierney has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Mvo figgree in PSYChOlogy Major professor '/ Date 5/27/25 Joel Arnoff 0-7639 MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution MSU LIBRARIES .——. \— RETURNING MATERIALS: Place in book drop to remove this checkout from your record. FINES will be charged if book is returned after the date stamped below. THE DEVELOPMENT AND VALIDATION OF AN OBJECTIVE MEASURE OF NEED FOR SAFETY BY William Boyd Tierney A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS Department of Psychology 1985 (@1986 WILLIAM BOYD TIERNEY All Rights Reserved ABSTRACT THE DEVELOPMENT AND VALIDATION OF AN OBJECTIVE MEASURE OF NEED FOR SAFETY BY William Boyd Tierney The need for safety has been addressed by psycholo- gists since the time of Freud, yet previous attempts to objectively measure this construct have been unsatisfactory. The present study attempts to quantify safety-orientation as Maslow (1970) conceptualized it. A 64-item questionnaire was completed by 243 subjects; the data were factor ana- lyzed, yielding 11 interpretable factors, three of which were chosen to comprise the Safety Scale: order, risk-taking, and moderation. The instrument's internal reliability was found to be satisfactory (alpha=.82). Scores on the scale were then compared to scores on four other criterion scales, measuring permissiveness, conserva- tism, threat-perception, and willingness to take risks. Significant correlations in the hypothesized direction were obtained for each scale. The author concludes that the scale is valid and discusses areas for further research. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This paper represents the culmination of three years of planning, speculation, worry, and doubt. Therefore, there are several people whose help at various stages of my progress has been invaluable. First and foremost, I'd like to thank my mother, who played a vital role throughout the entire project, for all her help. I thank my committee members, Charles Wrigley and Larry Messe, and especially my advisor Joel Aronoff, who came to bat for me when I needed his help most. Thanks also to Mr. Jim Jacobson and Dr. Henry Harty of Saint Peter's College, as well as to Dr. Betsy Gardner of Fairfield University for allowing me access to their class- es, and to Dr. Dorothea D. Braginsky, my advisor at Fairfield, who helped me get this thing started in the first place, for her help, encouragement, and kind words. I acknowledge the assistance of Dan Stultz with some of my computer work. Thanks, Dan. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES O O O O O O O C I Safety Need CHAPTER I. Introduction . . . . . . II. Profile of the Safety-Oriented Personality . . . . . . III. Theoretical Background . Early Theorists . . . . Factor Analytic Studies More Recent Approaches IV. Prior Attempts to Measure V. Pilot Work . . . . . . . VI. Validating the Scale . . Permissiveness . . . . Conservatism . . . . . Threat-Perception . . . Choice-Dilemma Questionnaire . . . Hypotheses . . . . . . VII. Method . . . . . . . . . Subjects . . . . . . . Instruments . . . . . . Procedure . . . . . . . VIII. Results . . . . . . . . . IX. Discussion . . . . . . . iii Page 10 14 14 14 15 .15 .15 17 17 17 18 19 20 APPENDICES APPENDIX A. APPENDIX B. APPENDIX C. APPENDIX D. APPENDIX END NOTE . REFERENCES E. The Safety Scale . . . . . . Permissiveness Scale . . . . The Conservatism Scale . . . Perception of Environmental Threat Scale . . . . . . . Choice-Dilemma Questionnaire iv 22 23 24 25 26 29 3O LIST OF TABLES TABLE Page 1. Correlation Matrix of Personality Scale . . . . 32 2. Comparison of Means of Upper and Lower Quartile of Safety Scale Scores for Each criterion 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 33 INTRODUCTION Throughout the course of the history of psychology, a considerable number of personality theorists have addressed themselves to the individual's need for a safe environment in which to exist. Most notably, it was Abraham Maslow who gave the fullest and most direct treatment of this construct in his theory of human motivation (Maslow, 1970). He describes personality as being arranged as a hierarchy of motivational states. As each need is satisfied, a new need or set of needs emerges, beginning from the basic, physio- logical requirements and culminating in the drive for self-actualization. Of particular interest, however, is the fact that upon meeting one's biological demands, it is the need for safety that dominates the organism. From this, it may be inferred that the gratification of the safety motive is quite vital for effective human functioning. Further- more, it is the safety-oriented individual who, at least implicitly, is the farthest from self-actualization, or human fullness. Because the safety-suited person is so undeveloped psychologically, this particular orientation warrants some concern. It is felt that by developing a 2 method whereby such safety-oriented individuals may be easily and objectively identified, a significant step would be made in the direction of understanding the dynamics of personality and motivation. Such is the purpose of this thesis. PROFILE OF THE SAFETY-ORIENTED PERSONALITY Perhaps the most concise description of the safety-oriented individual person is given by Maslow himself when he describes this type of person as ”one who lives his life out as if he were a spy in enemy territory" (Maslow, 1970). He prefers an environment which is safe, predict- able, and easily managed. Also, he prefers a rigidly organized society devoid of ”threats to law, order, and the authority of society.” In extreme cases, the organism may be dominated by this need, in which case safety is habitual- ly kept first and foremost in mind. Characteristic behav— iors include an attitude of extreme caution, fear‘of even remotely possible dangers and mishaps, defensiveness, and suspicion of others' behaviors and motives. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND Early Theorists The first theorist to consider the need for a safe environment was probably Freud (1933), who discussed it in the context of anxiety. An unsafe situation consisted of any unmanageable attack on the ego, which in turn results in some kind of defense mechanism, such as repression. Among his contemporaries, it was Karen Horney who also posited a construct roughly parallel to the safety need, which she labelled ”basic anxiety”--an inherent component of personal- ity developing in childhood, which she describes as a feeling of helplessness and apprehension in a hostile world (Horney, 1950). In their classic study of the authoritarian personali- ty, Adorno and his colleagues (Adorno et al., 1950) put forth an extensive, in-depth description of what may very well be an extreme type of safety-oriented individual. Specifically, they depict the authoritarian as being submis— sive to authority and as viewing the world as a jungle. This bears a strong similarity to Maslow's conception of the safety-oriented individual as needing strength in the protector as well as laws and freedom from fear. Factor Analytic Studies A small number of constructs that are somewhat similar to Maslow's safety need have been identified by psycholo- gists using the psychometric approach to personality study. For example, Cattell (1957), using a special type of grand-scale factor analysis, was able to reduce normative personality structure to sixteen traits, or factors. One of these he called ”radicalism.” This factor seems to tap an "experimenting/conservative" dimension of functioning, and is comprised in part of the following attitudes and beliefs: a preference for chess over croquet; the value of scientific knowledge over that of moral excellence; and that one learns more by reading books than by attending class. While this particular factor bears the closest resemblance to safety orientation, the two are quite dissimilar. J.P. Guilford and his associates conducted a similar study to Cattell's, only in this case, they investigated via factor analysis, human interests or "sources of human satisfaction” (Guilford, et al., 1954). Among the 28 factors extracted, there was one that more closely resembled the Maslovian construct than any of the others. They termed this factor "adventure vs. security" and characterized it by such variables as a desire for exploration and risk-taking, and an aversion toward such things as monotony and harm ("harm-avoidance"). These findings once again suggest the existence of safety motivation, though still represent only . . 1 a rough approx1mation. 6 Numerous studies of political attitudes, Eysenck and others (e.g., Eysenck, 1954, 1975; Ferguson, 1946; Wilson, 1973) have consistently uncovered a dimension of conserva- tism. The political conservative is characterized by particular values such as patriotism, endorsement of capital punishment, concerns with law and order, and the like. Clearly, this constellation of beliefs bears at least some resemblance to safety-orientation; indeed, the latter is probably a component of the former. Later, a closer exami- nation of the relationship between these two variables will be considered. Logic tells us they ought to be positively correlated. More Recent Approaches In her development of a theory of political man, Knutson (1972) was strongly influenced by Maslow's views. She proposed that safety-oriented people possess certain political beliefs, behaviors and philosophies, and her research has supported this idea empirically. Furthermore, Knutson saw these people to be insecure, anxious, intolerant of ambiguity, dogmatic, and sensitive to threats from the environment. They view the world as unresponsive to their needs, yet they are passive in accepting their roles. They are alarmist and prone to prejudice. Throughout her book, she makes a persuasive argument for such people being unique political, philosophical and economic beings, and that therefore they ought to be studied in a particular context. However, ”...the work was flawed in ways that shall be dealt with shortly." Martin Seligman (1975), in dealing with helplessness, has recognized people's shared need for safety, particularly the feeling of being in control of one's environment. According to his research, a feeling of anxiety results when an individual feels his behavior will have no effect on the predicament with which he or she is faced. Seligman calls this state of mind "learned helplessness.” However, this feeling can be allayed during the presence of any stimulus that indicates the subject's behavior will in fact be effective in altering one's surroundings. Finally, Aronoff and Wilson (1985) have extensively reviewed Maslow's theory. In summarizing the safety needs, the authors borrow some of Murray's (1938) terminology. Accordingly, in their view, the safety-seeking person is driven by the peripheral motives of abasement, dependency, approval and order, and has the additional needs for rejec- tion, contrarience, acquisition, conservance, and retention. Although these assertions make a great deal of intuitive sense, they consider safety need in a broad, clinical, idiographic perspective, and present little empirical support for their position. PRIOR ATTEMPTS TO MEASURE SAFETY NEED At least two previous efforts have been made to quanti- fy safety needs, as Maslow himself has defined it. One attempt is found in the study by Knutson, mentioned above. The administration of a large number of personality tests and inventories made it necessary for her to include only a few items in each one of her scales. Her measure of safety need included only four items, each of which seemed to tap a different type of insecurity. Thus, it is quite possible that the measure she developed is unreliable and internally inconsistent; no psychometric properties are given for it. Furthermore, a four-item scale is probably of questionable value by virtue of its brevity. It is unlikely that four questions can adequately measure such a broad category as safety- orientation. The second attempt was made by Aronoff (1967), in devising a theory of culture and personality during a field study in the West Indies. Using Maslow's theory as a framework, he developed a sentence completion test designed to measure both esteem and safety-orientation. Later this projective test was revised for use on American college students. While it has been found useful in other studies 9 (e.g. Aronoff and Messe, 1971), "...its reliability is unknown...” In addition, the measures of the two orienta- tions are partially ipsative, because the format of the instrument promotes the likelihood that observed scores will be negatively correlated; a high score on one dimension tends to produce a low score on the other. Since no empiri— cal evidence exists to support the assumption that the two orientations conceptually are negatively correlated, the validity of the Aronoff Sentence Completion Test remains questionable. Another difficulty with the instrument lies in the scoring, since responses are often ambiguous and must be scored subjectively. All this discussion points to the fact that while the development of a pure, objective measure of need for safety has been considered a worthwhile endeavor, there still remains some room for improvement. Such improvement is the purpose of the study. PI LOT WORK The first step in the construction of the safety scale that was the focus of the present research consisted of generating a pool of as many items as possible that might tap a person's need for safety, or absence of such a need. Included in the pool was any item that seemed as though it might relate to some type of safety need. Also, every effort was made to word items in such a way as to reduce, as much as possible, to as great an extent as possible any possibility of ambiguity or response acquiescence. A few of the categories in which the items fell include: the actual writings of Maslow on the topic (e.g. "I have a desire for a predictable orderly world," and "It is necessary to have a savings account"); interpersonal style (e.g. "I'm not afraid to strike up a conversation with a stranger,” and “I consid- er myself shy"); political beliefs (e.g. "Politically I consider myself conservative" and "The minimum age at which a person may drive should be reduced"); attitudes toward rules (e.g. "Rules are made for a reason and should there- fore be followed to the letter"); general life style (e.g. "I act regardless of how others may feel" and "I run my daily affairs according to a set schedule"); attitudes 10 11 toward money (e.g. "Money is not one of my main concerns"); and items which deal with psychological growth and fulfill- ment (e.g. "I love the world as it is"). "From a pool of approximately 130 items, 100..." were selected for inclusion in an initial questionnaire: 50 items were positively scaled and 50 negatively scaled. A six-point Likert scale was used as the response format. A sample of approximately 160 college students were administered the loo-item form. About 80 were from Saint Peter's College in Jersey City, whereas the remainder came from Fairfield University in Connecticut. One hundred and forty-nine of the forms were completed entirely or nearly entirely, and so were deemed suitable for statistical analysis. A factor analysis with varimax rotation was performed on the data from the completed questionnaires. A careful inspection of the results revealed that the subjects-to-items ratio was too low for the results to be meaningful. It was therefore decided (a) to augment the sample, and (b) to reduce the number of items. In order to increase the sample size, an additional 95 students were drawn from introductory Psychology classes at Michigan State University. As it was necessary to eliminate some of the items, the decision was made to strike any item which in any way did not contribute to the scale's direct, unambiguous, and pure measure of safety need. Questions excluded on this basis included those which dealt with 12 interpersonal style, neuroticism/anxiety (e.g. ”I live in fear"), things not necessarily under one's control (e.g. ”My life is different every day“), and any item that might be construed as measuring something other than safety-orienta- tion (e.g. ”I'm full of self-confidence"). Thirty-six such stimuli were omitted in this manner, leaving 64 for inclu- sion in the second form of the questionnaire. This shorter form was given to the Michigan State University sample described above. These data, along with the Fairfield and Saint Peter's College data, were once again factor analyzed. This time, a much more satisfactory set of factors was obtained. Of the 20 factors that accounted for more than one percent of the variance after rotation, 11 were interpret— able. Appendix A lists these factors, along with those items that loaded .4 or above on one of them. Of these 11 factors, at least three are probably artifactual: those dealing with hitchhiking, fire drills and misanthropy. In addition, three were reflected by mainly two items. Of the five remaining factors, three were selected for inclusion in the final measure on the a poste- riori basis of consistency with the need hierarchy theory. These are factor 1 (order), factor 2 (risk), and factor 4 (moderation). Thus the twenty items in these factors were chosen to comprise the safety scale, with items 1-9 coming from the order factor, 10-16 from the risk factor, and 17-20 from the moderation factor. 13 A reliability analysis for the entire scale was per- formed. Its internal consistency was found to be quite satisfactory, o<8 .82. Further analysis was carried out for each of the subscales. For factor La 8 .77; for factor 2,°<= .80, and for factor 3,o<= .63. VALIDATING THE SCALE Having established the internal consistency of the scale, the task remained of establishing empirically its actual validity. In order to carry this out, four other pencil and paper measures were selected to serve as validity criteria. Permissiveness. Since safety-oriented individuals value a tightly structured, orderly world, one might reasonably expect a negative correlation with a measure of permissiveness. In factor analyzing a list of statements dealing with a wide variety of social and political issues, Eysenck (1975) extracted a number of interesting factors, the first of which he dubbed permissiveness. Eleven of the highest- 1oading items from this factor were employed as one criterion. Conservatism. In a discussion of psychological conservatism, Wilson (1973) has conceptualized it as a preference for ”playing safe and avoiding risks," as well as "the disposition towards being moderate and cautious." These ideas seem to bear a strong similarity to Maslow's safety-orientation, and 14 15 any valid measure of conservatism should logically correlate with the Safety Scale. Threat-Perception. Another salient characteristic of the safety-motivated person is the sensitivity to any potentially threatening stimuli. Indeed, Knutson (1972) has suggested that those high in need for safety feel more threatened than do those low in that dimension. Hammes (1961) has developed a measure of perception of environmental threat in order to assess its relation to anxiety. This scale, called the DAT, seemed a logical choice as another criterion. Choice-Dilemmagguestionnaire. Both theoretically and factorially, safety-orientation involves, in part, an aversion to risk and precariousness, and a favorable attitude towards stability and predict- ability. It follows that a valid measure of safety-orien- tation would correlate with a risk-taking measure. The one developed by Kogan and Wallach (1964), the Choice- Dilemma Questionnaire, although originally intended for use in small groups research, was found to be the most realistic of all such scales that were available. Hypotheses. We would expect the Safety Scale to correlate posi- tively with scores on the C scale (Conservatism), the DAT scale, and the Choice-Dilmenna Questionnaire (CDQ). We would expect a negative correlation, however, with permis- siveness scores. In addition, it is projected that, on each 16 of the four criteria, the scores of the upper quartile of Safety Scale scorers be significantly greater (or in the case of permissiveness, smaller) than those of the lower quartile. METHOD Subjects Seventy-eight students enrolled in upper-level Psychol- ogy courses at Michigan State University anonymously com- pleted a packet of five questionnaires at home. Twenty-four identified themselves as male, forty-three as female, with the rest not indicating their sex. All subjects received course credit for their participation. Instruments Questionnaires were distributed prior to the beginning of the class session. The students were told to complete the forms for extra credit and to return them at the next class meeting. The Safety Scale and Eysenck's permissiveness factor consists of 20 and 11 items, respectively, to which subjects responded along a six-point Likert scale. The C scale is comprised of 50 one or two-word items, half conservative, half liberal. The subject is simply asked to respond either "yes” or "no" to each item, according to his or her approval or disapproval. The DAT scale consists of 32 items, the responses to only 12 of which actually contribute to the scoring. The subject indicates on a seven-point Likert 17 18 scale how dangerous, aggressive, or threatening he or she perceives each item to be. Finally, the CDQ contains 12 brief stories involving a decision the main character must make. For each scenario, the alternatives include an unlikely but rewarding outcome, and a more certain, but much less satisfying result. The respondents are told to imagine they were advising the main character. They then indicate whether they would endorse taking the riskier of the two options presented, and if so, what the minimum chance of success must be for them to endorse it. (See appendices for reproductions of the actual questionnaires used). Procedure For the first four questionnaires, responses were scored in the direction of high safety need, high permis- siveness, conservatism, and high threat perception respec- tively. For the CDQ, scores were based on the minimum probability that was deemed acceptable for each of the 12 items (e.g. 3 out of 10 would be scored as 3). If no options were deemed acceptable, and the subject advised against the risky option ”no matter what," then that re- sponse was scored as 10 (out of 10). RESULTS Table 1 shows the intercorrelations among all five scales. The Safety Scale correlated significantly in the predicted direction in each of the four cases. Table 2 presents the means of each scale, along with those of the upper and lower quartile of Safety Scale scorers. Once again, each hypothesis is supported. While the Safety Scale correlated with each criterion, the CDQ was correlated only with the Safety Scale. This pattern perhaps is due in part to an especially strong correlation between the CDQ scores and factor 2 (risk-taking) of the Safety Scale, r (76) = .225, p,= .005. The correlation coefficients with factor 1, order, r (76) = .169, p = .07, and factor 3, moderation, r (76) = -.017, p’= .455, were nonsignificant. Therefore, it was largely on the strength of the sensitivity to risk-taking of the Safety Scale that the CDQ correlated with it. Among those subjects who indicated their sex, no difference was found among the Safety Scale scores between males and females, t (65) = 1.43, 2.: .153. 19 DISCUSSION The data present strong evidence that the Safety Scale is indeed valid. Of further interest, however, is the fact that while Permissiveness, Conservatism and threat- perception intercorrelated significantly, (as one might very well expect), CDQ scores were linearly independent of all but Safety scores. This suggests that apart from the ”Conservative Syndrome" of attitudes, the Safety Scale also predicts the dimensions of risk-taking and decision-making, which themselves are unrelated to Conservatism and its correlates. This gives added strength to the validity of the newly-developed measure. While other such scales have been found and/or devel- oped in the past, it is felt that the present study has succeeded in putting together the most objective and compre- hensive a measure of safety need to date that is consistent with the Maslovian hierarchy theory. In addition, it is hoped that the role of safety-motivation be studied in various other contexts of personality and social psychology. For example, do safety-oriented people base their attribu- tions on different factors than do non-safety oriented peOple? In the context of locus of control, are 20 21 safety-oriented more external? Perhaps they are more anxious. Are they more susceptible to prejudice and the formation of stereotypes? How would their performance in a task setting compare to those who are not high in safety need? The findings of such research would promise to increase our knowledge of the dynamics of personality, the psychological basis of safety, and its role in dictating the social process. APPENDICES APPENDIX A: THE SAFETY SCALE INSTRUCTIONS: The following items deal with your attitudes about a number of things. Since we are all different, there is no such thing as a ”right” or ”wrong" answer. The idea is to read each item and fill out your response on the corresponding line. Your first impression is usually best. RESPOND TO EVERY ITEM, even if it does not apply to you very well. The possible responses for each item are as follows: 1: strongly agree 2: moderately agree 3: slightly agree 4: slightly disagree 5: moderately disagree 6: strongly disagree I have a desire for a predictable, orderly world. I always make sure I'm on time. Establishing discipline is a teacher's primary duty. 4. One of the first things a child should be taught is obedience. I always make sure I'm in control of a situation. I always try to do what is considered proper. "Be careful" is a good policy for living life. Rules are made for a reason, and should therefore be followed to the letter. 9. I wish people were more like me. 10. I enjoy situations that are new or unfamiliar. 11. I usually enjoy taking chances. 12. In general, I don't like taking chances. 13. '"Everything is sweetened by risk." 14. As far as my life is concerned, it's "anything goes." 15. I tend to avoid new or unfamiliar situations. 16. I try to make sure that no unmanageable, unexpected, or unfamiliar dangers will ever appear. 17. It's okay for people to use drugs occasionally for recreational purposes. 18. I tend to obey all speed limits. 19. I am very careful of how I spend my money. 20. I live by the rule "Everything in Moderation." UNI-4 oo. 22 APPENDIX B: PERMISSIVENESS SCALE INSTRUCTIONS: Below are 11 statements about various topics. On the line before each statement, write the number which corresponds to your position, or Opinion: 1 Strongly agree 2 = Moderately agree 3 = Slightly agree 4 = Slightly disagree 5 = Moderately disagree 6 = Strongly disagree More severe punishment of criminals will reduce crime. There is no harm in travelling occasionally without a ticket, if you can get away with it. The laws against "soft” drugs like marijuana are too strict. Modern students show unrest because the old ways have failed. Men and women have the right to find out whether they are sexually suited before marriage (e.g. by trial marriage). Children today need more discipline. The "new look” in drama and TV plays is an improvement on the old-fashioned type of entertainment. Sexual immorality destroys the marriage relation, which is the basis of our civilization. The 'free-and-easy" play-way of teaching youngsters results in poor reading and writing. Permissiveness in our society has gone much too far. The sight of young men with beards and long hair is unpleasant. 23 APPENDIX C: THE CONSERVATISM SCALE \DQQGU‘bMNt—i NNNNNNHHHHHHHHHH manHoxoooqmmthI-Io Which of the following do you favor or believe in? Circle "Yes” or There are no right or wrong answers; do not discuss; just ”No.” give your first reaction. death penalty evolution theory school uniforms striptease shows Sabbath observance beatniks patriotism modern art self-denial working mothers horoscopes birth control military drill co-education Divine Law socialism white superiority cousin marriage moral training suicide chaperones legalized abortion empire-building student pranks licensing laws Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes '0 '0 '0“) '0 '0 '0'0'0 '0'0'0'0'0'0'0'0‘0'0'0 '0 '0 Answer all items. NO No No No No No No No NO No No No NO No No No No No No No No No No No No 24 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 computer music chastity fluoridation royalty women judges conventional clothing teenage drivers apartheid nudist camps church authority disarmament censorship white lies birching mixed marriage strict rules jazz straitjackets casual living learning Latin divorce inborn conscience coloured immigration Bible truth pajama parties If absolutely uncertain, circle "?." Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes ? No '0 '0 '0 '0 '0 '0 '0 '0 "0 '0 '0 '0'0'0'0'0 '0'0'0'0'0'0 '0 '0 No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No APPENDIX D: PERCEPTION OF ENVIRONMENTAL THREAT SCALE INSTRUCTIONS: This is a study in the evaluation of common objects in your environment. You are to rate the objects on this list in terms of their dangerous, aggres- sive, or threatening aspects. For each object circle a number on the line. If you consider the object to be very dangerous, aggressive, or threatening, give it a 7; if least dangerous, aggressive, or threatening, give it a 1. You may mark any number between 1 and 7, with 4 denoting an average rating. angel 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 jungle 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 balloon 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 kite l 2 3 4 5 6 7 bank 1 2 3 4 S 6 7 knob 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 basket 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 lion 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 bird 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 mob 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 bracelet 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 octopus l 2 3 4 5 6 7 button 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 paint 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 chicken 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 paper 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 claw 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 party 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 coin 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 phonograph 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 cow 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 pony 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 crocodile 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 razor 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 deer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 scorpion 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 diamond 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 seaweed l 2 3 4 5 6 7 door 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 shark 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 game 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 straw 1 2 3 4 s 6 7 hair 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 string 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 hatchet l 2 3 4 5 6 7 screen 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 hearse 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 whip l 2 3 4 5 6 7 25 APPENDIX E: CHOICE-DILEMMA QUESTIONNAIRE {Ilsa-i . {riteiaiiziliglzzlt gaps-ii! 8 5.2328533}.— d .irzsipataiafi . «83.38.368.585383. .i:ui2£§3§tfl8§.££:8£i2§aefluahfl isigazsgfifkstfitefifinégs! Siegfiseieisszd...‘ $1288.58; . 1K§3.§§£1§jl.¥j8§.a.s tang—ll o o o : Assn-6...... £5352£5.>33.3r§ ass-inlakg Sag-R838. tgglncz... 1.....zeazarg-g8 Issue-4.683833128595358saezaiflé .l .siazaiseaujszsfés 5.5.8551... ll SiaossazesunsséiaeaIafiadza .' Sis§£§=tsss§§eeso§fifiispl . §?s§£§ang§.§e.s-§§§iofil g3!§a:3§3521.5§£l .getaiuals . ocateaitaiierlinsigész dips-28‘ =1. leaknclaeo. 83582338553...— Scarlett-Ezfilharfl? 8353.33.85? .8. §§a§§=.§ .szfirtzszserizuflwuea gsnzgtsfiarlaasi.£asa£§.fiaxi giantsazazgsaiailo...‘Elapsed-o §s£8§k§§§§=§.§§3£§. 38.83.. {Swift-so: lsssugasisséaruo...‘ §j£_§.§.§-sete£n..§a6uz 1...... 5&1 5.331882329558295 6:385; I... gifclgigigadczd £u£33§§3e.1.5§ ' g.£a:§§3=21.5§”~hll IBI.3.=-§§.§2sa5§£.l Socializagéiaeseissffiul . gelauiéiaesafigfil. . tans-.51. 8...... 383.513.8113....215 {salsa-.3, . 12:83 is iiiiiizigshfilpfi .332.- 96... 5.. 83288 I: o 335253885333. .m..:!3.i§§.§8?§“§ .3. _ hi... .Baei.§elac§£§snaillsscaos £3528 3333;212:3534-1883; E3:§§e§3~l:§i..§§ifi£ 53...... 25.23: 3.3.... e. I... I. a. £21. 31...... .1... £2. figsezlszzétgérsl 8639.22.33... niaxxgljegfi 3516.8.2915113. .iisgsgslzilggéodia . 15851.3... 5.38338223332921442.353.321.253! II .i§._38!c2§_?§§35°.s.5.8§t£hl .Eaiaazlcgasu .3583}... skflial .358 3323:: 26k. 5.. his 05 an... 2 J a 93 all...» 2:. II .35..3§53.§§321~553fi|l .i§»§81§§.§§.§2s.§§£ll iii-1... 1.583.463: aiaiaifiailligilé .38. bills It... inane u...- 1. 3 .18 13353231585513].— 4.25155855— gaggzofiaaeegsitiaieeSssgzasi a355£l83=8§3§3§8§n1333£§£ filo. §=x_§a.l.:_£uRises-5238...}...fiuiaisuoi. a: gaeeazauseas..a_5 iezgigaubalfi gainersasizisd-o Eggsulzizla §.§§a§§§.§u£§.ziaé 6. EBagggii-figgllolg gigglittllazuciildsxa (.63.-£8.88! 5318...... 525.529.... 13314331118343.5141... guise... ingesteexseeacfliaaiii . - .afiiziiisi §§¢£i§13£££3ail £3§8338.T£§£3§8313i¢8~ a. 35.385.33.113x-5538g333. Aeneas... 22151-5333.]:si533xtai $35.8.fistfifa58332-8io3gi. 53?.3823368158355 figsgsfa 3351611311.!!!»6135346 i. : fldn 2.1.3....— .t.u.... .5 3.8: 2.13..- ScS-x... 9...... .5 .0 08.9.2. a 2.... ..5 92...... b.» 8 a. Six...- .5 5.... a5 a. 8...... 2.138... .2...- 33.’ X 2.1.3.3... EB. its... a $2.5 spams...» 5 Box—85 8- 833...... 3.3.2.2. a as. K 2.1.9:... .> 2.1.3.3.. 13 K 3.8325 53 3 is... .33.... .§..i§.fit§8:.58£iai Ség38§gaéigoi¢ah..xd .5355.1u§l8.§5§5s ..:.......3......§......§s..b..2i58...2.....1..8.: II . .saetm.1§Eciat_=uEa98§piga.sao. lulu-836...... ll .3... 21.5.... 3...... ..... .35.... 5...... .5 .1. o. a. . 2. .83... 2:. ll .3... 2.35.... 5...... ..... 5...... 5...... .5 ...5 e. .. n .3 3...... 1:. ll .2... 2.8.2.... 5...... ..... 6...... 6...... .5 ..5 e. a. «5.8.3... 2.... Ii .34.. .............. 5...... ...... 3...... 5.... .5 ..5 e. I. . t. 8...... I... II $.23. .53 3. .51 o I} a i .h .2 33.4.88 31.823.211.355?! 3.5.5... .5... .358 6...... .5 a. 5...... 15...... 1.1.8. .. 5... 8 5.53.... .22... e. .5... 3.: a. .2 3...... a. 8. .1. 8.9.... s............§...:......s.i.. j.5§335!33.a§a§1.¥35.il.3i5§ .. .Szaiaszi.§..8§es5si.s§ti.£3i.1£& ..§..............§.............o 551:...535852é guilfib.§8..5£§£t£8§§3isl .28. 5.8.5.....s...1.§3284§13..s58£8t s:...§.......8.....5.........q..5..............=l............u...... 8.3.2:. 8...... a... . s. .5... .155... 5.12.3 .3 it!!! .. 5.5.8.. .5 12.32... ........2.. 1. 31.8.8.9... a... .. 85.3.... 2:. 35;...5séefifiasfii.riau.ia ....9......................5.....2...........1....... l: .E......i..£5.1.e.s.t.oa.1.£h ll. .58....3............5.....2.......E.1.......u| .E...u.i.i.5.5e.s.t..r.1..fi II .§.=..i...£5.5o.s.z.§1..fi |.. 13.31.... .5 .1... 5.... 2. he... 243.951.5831.. 531D 6: Ali-3.39.23.19.51.— all mail..._... ' mp— ._.13888..&1128.3§2...s..2...2.§1.1al ..§u§.&11:8.§t£§..525.8§2:.ll .....3838..&1128.8..:§2=..523.8.81.1..II ._.1838.§11=8.§1Z1.25.8.8882Fll ...1§ii..811=8.8..:l§.1.25.2..88€3..l 33381383... 8.53:3..1:..8:..:358.=21..1..8£1i . . 38:83.!!! a............................. 313%}:833 1138.51.18283838883351881532. . 8388313.a1:132..:§.78831.§. .§3§!§.i 18.855.81333385.§§.§u§8l 89:33.55 .EsalaéltligtziSIII-g 9.53.32. 8.»... .1383... .888}. .1. 8...... 83.3.3.8 gingiaiafi£§3§£oc€§g§€ufigi 3318;338:3cfipgfii igniting: £§11§psu..hjzsg§az.i a. 28 £3183.1ubs§8§.3§..8 éagtséglzgsa..2358§z18138fill .ssapafis.!o.....£8=8..........1.2a......8..1.1...| .aiE§!2§:_8...8ta....§=2u.......8............l .%§£§9.82§A..20132Jet-gaioflrl .§§£§:.8383...2..523.2.8885] €§§2§2§A¢23§25.5§£| 8.1.5385. 8:8:«3:.~..:&§ §¥383i2831m ...:3=§E§£8£.338£12835283133 .Ségflgig d...¢lip1¢§§ulaul'. .8582.....8.....I....58..z§.....21..§.33....8128u .5:§§t%§§3£8¢81§3§2¢5§.§ t.§...:...§..........81.81......1..5.635..1e.88....8 1......3..1£:§.58.5821...5£5..£££u§8 3.... :1 2...... .. .2 5...... .88. e... 8...... 8 .. .28.... 1.8.... 8... 8.18.2123...:8.......a..8...1....8228.88.13.838... ....ff%§3§.8§.ia1.§§121££ 5:81.331... .§:.§.8873.3.£ . . .3 _ a alt... .l£.§t§3§.iia9§.83:l.c..i.= . 3.2.... .38....235.....8.... .....1.................. II. . 8.3.1.... :8........1:.. 3.2.81.2... .33.}.5.....8......2.!........n2¢.8¢1ot....ll . .39....5.......8.......p..1.e....2-.8-1.1...HI| ..§I~s:£n:§:.....£.o.loro§£h . 1......12. 1. .1. .8..- II 8859......aiazlsassx..........8..................8... .ufiluutt.5au..zt.¥ iii-311.318.38.83! .81.... . 83.113381133955388! 1:31.... .5... 2. 8.... 3.: ... .2 If... a. 8. .1. 8.8.... .. fill-921...: 13...... J...o£.8.au....o.:.x=3 9.13.2.6... o: 1...... 383.033 ..13..§§8§.8§..IE%¢3.§I.3§338§ .881..._8.._18...:.8.....: 11851388381883... 3.81. 1.8... «88.2.... .3... .88.... 2...... .... a: 3.2.3...- 3538§.§8888.8.€8.§.8£3§1.3 21:33.1... .m..a§l..8~£3£ai.ol¢.r..au.oxt.o 3.128.338...:811u.18.l138cl...= .2 o. 65.389.30.318Il .8.!=8K¢8~3.¢.3¢...3§~..2disohsfaou‘ucuo-r—III .§!§&%§.!:e.l.otoloa3ooflrlll .E!§§o§.¢§2lulo§£l .Eiiaobosgofialae.£n2¢§afinl .§!§Ki£30.1ns§oflrl .2!§§§.§2£.2¢£‘9£ 1.8.038: 8.. . 3.811158182381131. \§}§.:-i. taint-8.118.033 8&.31§.¢t82.8.133.~.211.888.31'. 3.13398383389183— 23982-93...qu 3§EESJ§.§5 .gg3oloun-Jjalai niia......l..... 3.1.2.8.... 8.8.3....3lofign5‘ Al... 8.51 1.8... 1...... 8.8.... 5... ...... 8......- ....1 . .3. 8.... .81.... .31 .9 iggb.38.353681¢l§ 6.8.2.301 3......-...¢.538.Fn..§~.£3£8u§<'a~ .3" Signigsgz..zage.i.t-§££H jigcaegligsl..zoo52o.nto§lt£l ii:§.'§2§=..lala2lat¢iofir hiv._8«. END NOTE END NOTE 1It is of interest that in a study of the dimension of ”temperament,” Guilford and Zimmerman (1956) discovered no fewer than 14 factors. Of them, not one could be thought of as being at all like safety-orientation. 29 LI ST OF REFERENCES 30 REFERENCES Adorno, T.W., Frenkel-Brunswick, E., Levinson, D.J., & Sanford, R.N. (1950). The authoritarian personality. New York: Harper. h Anastasi, A. (1982). Psychological testing (5t ed.). New York: Macmillan Publishing Co. Aronoff, J., and Wilson, J.P. (1985). Personality in the social process. New Jersey: Erlbaum. Aronoff, J. (1967). Psychological needs and cultural systems. Princeton: Van Nostrand. Aronoff, J., & Messe, L.A. (1971). Motivational determi- nants of small group structure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 17, 319-324. Brockett, C. (1975/76). Toward a clarification of the need hierarchy theory: Some extensions of Maslow's conceptualiza- tion. Interpersonal Development, 6, 77-90. Cattell, R.B. (1957). Personality and motivation structure and measurement. New York: World Book. Comrey, A.L., Backer, T.E., & Glasser, E.M. (1973). A source-book for mental health measures. Los Angeles: Human Interaction Research Institute. Eysenck, H.J. (1954). The psychology of politics. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, Ltd. Eysenck, H.J. (1975). The structure of social attitudes. British Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 14, 323-332. Ferguson, L. (1941). The stability of the primary social attitudes: I. Religionism and humanitarianism. Journal of Psychology, 12, 283-288. Freud, S. (1933 & 1961) ”New Introductory Lecturers on Psychoanalysis.” New York: W.W. Norton & Co. Guilford, J.P., Christensen, P.R., Nicholas, A.B. Jr., & Sutton, M.A. (1954). A factor analysis study of human interests. Psychological Monographs, 68, no. 375. Guilford, J.P., & Zimmerman, W.S. (1956). Fourteen dimen- sions of temperament. Psychological Monographs, 70, no. 417. 31 Hammes, J.A. (1961). Manifest anxiety and perception of environmental threat. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 17, 25-26 0 Horney, K. (1937). Neurotic personality of our time. New York: W.W. Norton. Horney, K. (1950). Neurosis and human growth. New York: W.W. Norton. Kline, P. (1983). Personality: Measurement and theory. London: Hutchinson. Knutson, J.N. (1972). The human basis of the polity. Chicago: Aldine-Atherton. Kogan, N., & Wallach, M.A. (1964). Risk-taking. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Maslow, A.H. (1970). Motivation and personality (2nd ed.). New York: Harper & Row. Maslow, A.H. (1971). The farther reaches of human nature. New York: Viking. Murray, H.A. (1938). Explorations in personality. New York: Oxford University Press. nd Nunnally, J. (1978). Psychometric methods (2 ed.). New York: McGraw Hill. Rosenthal, R., & Rosnow, R.L. (1975). The volunteer sub- ject. New York: Wiley. Samuel, W. (1981). Personality: Searching for the sources of human behavior. New York: McGraw Hill. Seligman, M.E.P. (1975). Helplessness: 0n depression, development, and death. San Francisco: W.H. Freeman. Wilson, G.D. (1973). The psychology of conservatism. New York: Academic Press. Wilson, G.D., & Patterson, J.R. (1970). Manual for the conservatism scale. N.F.E.R., Windsor, England. TABLES 32 .cmaficulmso mun wocuowuacmam mo mumme HocmV_Ntc mo.V Na, .ms u z .muoz Ho.l mo. mc.l «MN. mmHQZZOHBmmDO dZZNAHDImUHOEU «mm. aom.l «mm. ZOHBmmummm Bdflmmfi «abm.l «aNm. SmH94>mmmZOU tthol mmmzm>HmmHzmwm ZOHBQHUMNQ ZWHB¢>mNmZOU mmmZN>HmmH2mfim flfldUm Bdfimmfi Nfimhdm mmAm ~6.mm mc.eo ms Hmuoew mmH¢ZZOHBmmmm ZOHBmmommm ZmHB¢>mmmzoo mmmzm>HmmHzmwm mgdum (ZENAHDINUHOmU Bdmmma Mfimmdm ZOHmmBHmU modm mom mumoum andom Mammdm ho mnHfim