A PATTERN ANALYTIC APPROACH TO THE
MEASURE OF MODES OF EXPRESSION OF I
PSYCHOLOGICAL DIFFERENTIATION

Thesis for the Degree of Ph. D.
MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY
Clyde Allan Crego, Jr}

3 19.646 f 7

 

TH E615

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled

A PATTERI‘I MIALY“ IC AT’PR’)!‘ C71 '1'") fI’I'HF‘
"IETAS ,TRF OF ‘IODES OI“ ‘ ""“ru *‘ "‘5 III {71*
PSYC II )TMITLIJ *YEII‘FLITI T"? 21.3.."7‘D’IE'I

presented bg
Clyde Allan Crego, Jr.

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

Ph .D . “svc 101.0 rjr
degree in__-'____

   
 
  

"LIBRARY
Michigan State
Univg:-rsity

/j/</[ ,///é”/

Major professor

0-169 .

 

 

ABSTRACT

A PATTERN ANALYTIC APPROACH TO THE
MEASURE OF MODES OF EXPRESSION OF
PSYCHOLOGICAL DIFFERENTIATION

by Clyde Allan Crego, Jr.

This study represents an attempt to describe persons
with respect to their unique modes of expression of psycho—
logical differentiation. A measurement model was conceived
on the basis of a configural statistical procedure, assump—
tions concerning differential validity of configural scoring
of item responses, and internal consistency within levels
of dimensions expressive of level of differentiation.

The model is presented so as to provide a basis for
identification of modes of expression of differentiation
across broad ranges of personality dimensions and persons.
Validation of the model is represented by acceptance of
propositions concerning basic variables reflective of
expression of differentiation.

The concept of integration is employed in the model
with respect to measures of defense mode and expectancy
for internal versus external control of reinforcement and
the configural relationship of the dimensions to level of
psychological differentiation. Level of differentiation is
said to be independent of integration; integration (or lack

of it) can occur at all levels of differentiation. Form

 

Clyde Allan Crego, Jr.

of integrative behaviors is said to be indicative of
expression of differentiation in maladaptive terms. Var—
iables expressive of lack of integration, at the specified
level of differentiation aid in the description of the con—
sequent expression of maladaptive functioning.

Propositions proposed were: (1) Integration will
occur at all levels of differentiation. (2) Pathological
forms of expression of high and low levels of differentia—
tion would be reflected by lack of integration expressed by
inconsistency between level of differentiation and internal—
ization-externalization.

Ninety—nine undergraduate female subjects were admin—
istered the revised Repression—Sensitization Scale, as a
measure of defense mode, the Internalization—Externaliza-
tion Scale, as a measure of expectancy regarding locus of
reinforcement, and the Hidden-Figures Test, a measure of
field dependence—independence indicative of level of dif—
ferentiation. Individual, pooled responses were converted
to agreement scores and then pattern analyzed by the method,
Hierarchical Classification by Receprocal Pairs. Ninety—
four clusters were yielded. Definition of clusters as
types occurred on the basis of application of a measure
of internal consistency within levels of dimensions
employed. Seven theoretically significant types emerged
from a possible twenty—seven. Levels of association
representing each type were high. Propositions were sup—

ported by the emergence of the particular types.

Clyde Allen Crego, Jr.

All types were consistent with the expectation that
the integrative hypothesis would reflect form of expres—
sion of internalization and defense mode as a function of
level of differentiation; concurrently, integration was
found to occur at all levels of differentiation.

Lack of integration was expressed by the defense modes
expected to relate to the particular form of lack of inte—
gration and level of differentiation at which it occurred.

The facility of the measurement model to yield theo-
retically consistent and unusually definitive representa—
tions of communality and uniqueness in individual differ—
ences among persons, based on a pattern search for varied
modes of expression of differentiation, was shown to have
wide-spread implications for further research. Implications
were cited with respect to the dimensions currently studied,
the concept of integration in a configural model, and with
regard to general measurement problems in the area of per—

sonality study.

A PATTERN ANALYTIC APPROACH TO THE
MEASURE OF MODES OF EXPRESSION OF

PSYCHOLOGICAL DIFFERENTIATION

By

Clyde Allan Crego, Jr.

A THESIS

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

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Psychology

1966

DEDICATED

To Carol
for giving and waiting

 

ii

 

 

 

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The writer wishes to express his sincere appreciation
to the following members of his committee: to Dr. Mary
Leichty, for her helpful suggestions and past guidance, to
Dr. Lucy Rau Ferguson, for her interest, understanding, and
competence as a psychologist, to Dr. Bill Mueller, for his
statistical insights and significant help given during the
developmental stages of the thesis, and, to his major pro-
fessor, Dr. Bill L. Kell, for his ideas, his support and
his insistence that the writer allow free expression of
his thinking. Professor Kell, in all dimensions, is
teacher and psychologist.

Special acknowledgement is given to Dean Louis L.
McQuitty whose thinking about psychological measurement
has had considerable impact on the writer and this research.
Appreciation is expressed to Mr. Jim Clark whose ideas
regarding implementation of pattern analytic studies have
always helped the writer to achieve satisfaction with the
method. Gratitude is also expressed to the writer's col-
league and friend, Mr. Edward Hanna, who, in no small way,
remained a constant source of encouragement throughout
difficult periods of work.

And thanks to Terri Jo and Allan for doing without

their ”daddy.”

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
LIST OF TABLES
LIST OF APPENDICES
INTRODUCTION
Psychological Differentiation: The Problem
Psychological Differentiation and Integration
Differentiation: The Measurement Problem
METHOD
Subjects
Instruments
Procedure
RESULTS
DISCUSSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Research Implications
SUMMARX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . .

APPENDICES

iv

Page

iii

vi

I-J

 

 

"A IHIILAAALLI"PE. |II A A

Table

LIST OF TABLES

Page

Range of scores, standard deviations, means,

medians, and quartiles for total scores on

measures of repression—sensitization, internal—
ization-externalization, and field—dependence—
independence. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Definition of types by their total score levels

as produced by pattern analysis of configural
responses by Hierarchical Classification by
Reciprocal Pairs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

 

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix
A. Item Definition of Types

B. Repression—Sensitization Scale

C. Internalization—Externalization Scale

vi

Page
AA
52
63

 

INTRODUCTION

Psychological Differentiation: The Problem

 

 

Psychological differentiation theory as prOposed by
Witkin (1954, 1962, 1965) has produced a model for research
which has led to significant and meaningful findings in the
area of personality study.

Differentiation is seen to, in part, represent a mat—
urational process toward greater analysis, articulation,
and structuring of experience. Maturation proceeds from a
relatively unstructured state, wherein the self is undif—
ferentiated from the field, toward increasing differentia—
tion and consequent integration across psychological areas.
The unstructured, undifferentiated state reflects the organ—
ism's global, unarticulated response to stimuli; increasing
structuring of experience represents development of
increased articulation in response to features of the envi-
ronment, greater specificity of response in terms of more
differentiated modes of responding, and, concurrently,
increased differentiation of the self from the field
(Witkin, fl” 1954, 1962).

Witkin's primary indicator of degree of psychological
differentiation within persons has been the variable of
field dependence—independence. Persons having low levels

of differentiation are found to be field—dependent, while

I

high levels of differentiation are related to field—inde—
pendence. Other dimensions of personality are needed, how—
ever, in order to understand mode or kind of differentiation
as well as degree or amount. Witkin and others (1962) have
utilized other measures of personality, such as nature of
defenses, in an effort to understand modes of differentia—
tion as well as degree of differentiation as measured by
field dependence—independence.

The research generated by Witkin and others (1962)
has typically proceeded by utilizing measures of single
personality variables and finding the degree of association
between each variable and field dependence—independence or
level of differentiation. The problem with the two-vari—
able-at-a-time research model is that it does not apply
to or describe peOple as they actually are very well. For
example, the model, variables, and research methods typi-
cally used have not taken into account such problems as
curvilinearity of functions measured and that relation—
ships investigated have typically not been rectilinear
although they have been treated as such.

The present research is an effort to correct the
above methodological deficiencies. It is also an effort
to demonstrate that a model can be developed to study dif—
ferentiation which can utilize a theoretically infinite
number of variables instead of the two-by—two approach here—

tofore fypically followed.

The approach of the present research is configural or
pattern analytic. Such methods have much promise for help—
ing us to describe and understand people as they may actu-
ally be since infinite numbers of variables can be used.
Also assumptions about data,as though the data are recti-
linear when in fact they are not, can be avoided. Con—
figural methods are more compatible with data of any shape-

-curvilinear, rectilinear, or whatever.

Psychological Differentiation and Integration

 

Theoretical clarity would be achieved if personality
variables related to differentiation were seen as indices
of mode of expression of psychological differentiation as
it occurs in different ways in different persons. In that
the measure of level of psychological differentiation is
based on differences in perceptual style, field dependence—
independence then reflects these basic differences while
measures of persons along other related personality dimen—
sions are seen to reflect the manner in which differentia-
tion is expressed. These dimensions represent patterns or
modes of expression of differentiation.

Modes of expression of differentiation reflect varying
degrees of personality integration. Particular combinations
of characteristics determine whether integration has occur-
red or not. While integration can occur at all levels of

differentiation, modes which reflect presence of integration

include different combinations of characteristics as a fun—

tion of the different levels.

Integration may be said to occur when there is con—
sistency between key, process variables, which are related
to the development of differentiation and level of differ—
entiation. Combinations of modes of expression of differ—
entation expressed as patterns should include such vari—
ables. Consistency between variables related to the devel-
opmental aspects of differentiation and level would reflect
modes of expression the nature of which are functions of
level of differentiation. Since integration has been
defined as consistency between a core, developmental vari—
able and level of differentiation, level of differentiation
is expressed by personality characteristics that occur in
relation to such consistency. These secondary character—
istics do not necessarily reflect primary developmental
aspects of differentiation, but are central as they define
the specific patterns (unique modes of expression of differ—
entiation).

If integration is present, then, these secondary
characteristics may be thought of as representing what is
more typically defined, in clinical terminology, as ”inte—
grated behaviors.” This seems to represent adaptive func—
tioning as it occurs at different levels of differentiation.
Clinically less well integrated behaviors, in this model
would be seen to represent modes of expression of differen—
tiation in persons whose level of differentiation is incon-
sistent with their functioning in an area representative of

developmental aspects of differentiation.

h;

 

 

Studies have shown that high or low degree of differ—
entiation relates differentially to form of expression of
pathology, (Witkin, 1965). In that high or low degree of
differentiation relates to forms of expression of non—path—
ological behavior as well, the most basic configural rela—
tionship between level of differentiation and its form of
expression may have its locus in the diminsion reflecting
integration or lack of it. Lack of integration at a cer—
tain level of differentiation would result in the expres—
sion of pathological behavior expressive of that level of
differentiation. Integration of behavior at any level of
differentiation would result in the expression of adaptive
behavior which is both expressive of the level and defined
by the secondary characteristics. Thus, integration is not
a function of level of differentiation, although form of
expression of integrated behaviors, and visa versa.

Defense mode is highly related to level of differ—
entiation. This dimension reflects presence or absence
of pathology and indicates form of expression of path—
ology.

Level of defense, measured on a continuum such as
repression—sensitization, would be seen in the present
model to interact with all levels of differentiation,
however. Persons who do not excessivly over—utilize
extremes in defense mode may vary quite widely as to the
level of differentiation as measured by field dependence—

independence measures. Pathological expression of low or

high levels of differentiation would be exemplified by
pathological over~utilization of certain modes of defense.

In order to characterize pathological versus non—
pathological expression of differentiation (as expressed
by extremes in defense mode), as a function of integration
among characteristics, consideration of a dimension reflect—
ing integration (or lack of it) would be meaningful at this
point.

Differentiation is assumed to represent increasing
growth toward reliance on internal frames of reference as
opposed to external (Witkin, 196A). Children with contrast—
ing modes of field approach differ significantly along a
dimension of extent of reliance on one's own standards or
on those of the experimenter, and in their accompanying
feelings toward the task (Witkin, 1964). Other studies
have shown that relatively undifferentiated persons are
more likely to use external sources for self—definition
(Rudin and Stagner, 1958; Linton, 1955; Bell, 1955;
Sangiuliano, 1951).

It is the view of the present author that develop-
ment of perception regarding the causal relationship
between a person's own behavior and reinforcement for such
behavior residing in internal as Opposed to external con—
trol factors is itself seen to be a function of the extent
to which the parental model has succeeded in aiding the
child to internalize and develop ways of attending to the

consequent internal cues which can serve to guide behavior.

 

This aspect of learning, as it relates to perception, no
doubt occurs in relation to highly differentiated behavior,
on the part of the parent, in order to relate learning
based originally on external cues to the child's growing
capacity to utilize internal cues as guides for behavior.

Implicit in this paradigm of behavior, based on
belief regarding locus of control of reinforcement, is the
interaction hypothesis which states that pathological mani—
festations of differentiation are no doubt reflective of
clinically less well integrated modes of expression,
level of differentiation, and degree of internalization.
Lack of integration at a high level of differentiation, for
instance, would manifest itself through inappropriate depen—
dence on external cues in conjunction with inability to
attend to highly developed internal cues.

Such behavior is highly cahracteristic of persons
described as being sensitizers (Byrne, I963). That is,
persons who score at the sensitizing end of the repres—
sion—sensitization dimension are described as being overly
concerned with external controls; their behavior is charac—
terized by overt attempts to control external sources of
threat through approach to the stimuli; persons with such
defense modes are shown to be most characterized by a high
level of differentiation (Witkin, 1965). Thus, highly
differentiated persons whose defense mode is considered to
be at a pathological extreme are more than likely employing

sensitizing defenses which result in or are reflective of

 

 

lack of integration as expressed through inability
to attend to highly developed internal cues.

The basic thesis is as follows: Patterns of per-
sonality characteristics exist which are indicative of
presence or lack of integration as expressed by consistency
or inconsistency between internalization-externalization
amilevel of differentiation. The consequent defining
modes expressiflmapathological, non-integrative function-
ing through extreme defense mode. Integrative functioning
is expressive of moderate defensiveness and specific defin—
ing characteristics which describe individual differences
in expression of differentiation.

That is to say, pathological forms of expression of
high and low levels of differentiation would be reflected
by inconsistency between level of differentiation and
externalization—internalization; lack of integration
would be characterized by mode of defense as it is related
to both level of differentiation and the altered expectancy
regarding locus of reinforcement.

Thus, in addition to the degree to which configural
relationships between modes of expression and level of
differentiation are indicative of individual differences
in personality functioning, patterns of modes of expression
of differentiation are expressive of the relationship
between integration and defining modes which reflect

adaptive or maladaptive functioning.

In that integration is thought to occur at all levels
of differentiation, moderate internalization in conjunction
with moderate degree of defensiveness would serve as an
index of the extent to which integrative behaviors interact
with all levels of differentiation. The optimal degree of
integration which would occur at a high level of differen—

tiation would be reflected by highly internalized standards

and consequent integrative behaviors as expressive by lack

of extreme defensiveness.

Differentiation: The Measurement Problem

 

 

In order to describe the complex set of inter—rela—
tionships between level of differentiation and major per-
sonality dimensions, research has proceeded most character-
istically using a measurement model which assumes the exis—
tence of rectilinear relationships between the variables
employed. Further, the multitude of findings expressed in
the form of coefficients of correlation imposes a measure—
ment model on the theory which accounts for the relation-
ships two variables at a time. In that modes of expression
of differentiation involve complex patterns of interacting
variables in relation to level of differentiation, and
Since it is assumed that these covary in unique ways across
peeple, it is felt that a configural (pattern) model would

be more definitive of the general aim of describing the way

IO

in which differentiation occurs within peOple. From this
point of view, it is clear that exploratory study is needed
to determine whether modes of expression of differentiation
can be meaningfully described in terms of a configural
model. I

Previous conclusions drawn from studies in which
rectilinear assumptions are made, have tended to exclude
consideration of the meaning of relationships between mod-
erate ranges of variables studied. Although correlational
techniques often describe deviancy in measurement based on
less complex, high order relationships at the extremes on
measures of pairs of variables, relationship between meas-
ures of variables within their moderate ranges are often
most complex, representative of curvilinearity, and espe~
cially configural in the sense that persons scoring at the
moderate range of one variable may vary to a high degree
with regard to their scores on other variables; relation-
ships especially characterized by extreme levels of vari-
ables and computation of significant, moderate coefficients
of correlation between them has led Witkin to seriously
overlook complex but meaningful sets of configural inter—
relationships among variables at moderate levels of measure-
ment. The extent to which Witkin writes about extreme
forms of behavioral or other representations of personality
correlates of differentiation supports the contention that

a model is needed which searches for modes of expression at

11

all levels of interaction between differentiation and
areas in which mode of expression occurs.

Another measurement difficulty has arisen with the
use of total scores in the measurement of personality cor-
relates to psychological differentiation. Many of the
personality scales used are well constructed and have
derived distributions of scores which are reflective of the
dimensions being measured. Many of these scales were
derived on the basis of careful item selection and vali-
dational procedure. However, when used within a frame-
work in which configural rekitionships between variables
are most meaningful, the assumption that total scores of
comparable range have the same meaning is suspect if one
considers that the following two assumptions are true in
measurement: (1) response to different sets of items can
yield identical total scores; (2) configural scoring of
responses leads to greater prediction than does linear
scoring (Meehl, 1950). Subjugation of total scores to
analysis by correlational procedure does not account for
this differential validity within dimensions; and, as
stated, the model is a simple one if only pairs of variables
are considered at a time. Invariant validity is often
well expressed by the relationships between variables con»
sidered at their extremes. Individuals who score at
extreme levels of dimensionality are representative of only
certain types of persons. It is here suggested that con-

figural relationships among variables are represented most

12

validly by consideration of the degree to which moderate
range measurements covary with other variables in highly
unique, configural fashion. This interaction between
levels of variables takes into account the differential
meaning of reSponses and scores when a configural analysis
is employed in the determination of modes of expression

of differentiation.

In that combinations of modes of expression of dif—
ferentiation are seen to vary across different types of
people, and since such configural differences among people
are difficult to express in terms of relationships between
variables, it was felt that analysis would best proceed if
configurations of modes of expression of differentiation
could be described in terms of persons who utilize each
unique mode pattern. Persons would be described then, in
terms of their characteristic responses within each pattern
of expression. Such an approach, if careful selection of
variables occurs at each level of analysis would be con-
sistent with Loevinger's statement that science best pro~

” the identification of persons as a form of

ceeds by
pattern recognition and the identification of randomness as

absence of pattern. . .” (Loevinger, 1965).

The Measurement Model
The above discussion of the theoretical expectancy concern~
ing individual modes of expression of differentiation in the

context of the configural relationships between levels of

 

 

13

three basic dimensions yielded the three following prOposi—
tions: (I) In an exploratory study psychological integra-
tion will occur at all levels of differentiation. In the
present exploratory study integration is best reflected by
defining consistency between level of differentiation and
internalization—externalization in terms of the moderate
range of the latter dimension. Consequent integrative
behavior is expressed by moderate defensiveness. (2) Path—
ological forms of expression of high and low levels of dif—
ferentiation would be reflected by lack of integration
expressed by inconsistency between level of differentiation
and internalization-externalization. Mode of expression
would be defined by the specific defense modes related to
this lack of integration. (3) Optimal degree of integra-
tion at a high level of differentiation would be expressed
by internalization and moderate defensiveness.

Thus, integration is a general concept reflecting
varying degrees of consistency among major dimensions
underlying differentiation. Varying degree of integration
is described by the particular patterns of characteristics
which are expressive of the level of differentiation for
any such given degree of integration.

These propositions assume configural measures
between all levels of the variables used to describe pat-
terns of modes of expression of differentiation. Inter—
action of responses, it is assumed, would yield the major

configurations if they in fact exist in any sample of

 

  

14

persons selected. Configurations of interacting responses
across all three variables should be indicative of the

fact that different clusters of items from a common item
pool among variables would differentially define unique
modes of expression of differentiation: Patterns defined
by clusters of items based on interaction of responses
assumes that differential determinants of response yield
configurations defined only by_such unique patterns and
that these patterns have the greatest predictive validity.
These configurations, based on varying sub-sets of items
(and responses to them) among variables, are related to
previously established total scores (derived by linear
measurement of all responses) insofar as the relationship
between the total scores is defined by the configuration

of persons who consistently agree on a sub—set of items.
Thus, two similar or equal total scores are said to be
related in a meaningful way if the scores are derived from
identical responses given to the same items. Identical
scores based on different responses to different items are
not assumed to reflect the same meaning at the most basic
levels of the dimension employed. This assumes high inter~
action variance among responses between the measures. Thus,
the configural relationship between field dependence—inde-
pendence, mode of defense, and internalization-externali-
zation varies according to the unique interaction variance
between pooled responses among major types of persons whose

modes of expression of level of differentiation interact

15

in unique, theoretically consistent ways and are expressed
as patterns. These patterns reflect varying modes of
expression of different levels of differentiation and varying
degrees of integration among modes at different levels.

Exploration of the basic propositions with regard to
a measurement model which makes the above assumptions would
serve as a test of the utility in searching for modes of
expression of differentiation by means of classifying
people into types as defined by the configural relation-
ships among measures employed.

In that configuration of types of persons varies as
a function of differentially defined sub—sets of items,
the size of clusters of defining items varies from type
to type. In the same fashion, the number of persons
represented in any configuration of persons who are char-
terized by patterns of modes of expression of differentia~
tion varies as a direct function of the actual number of
persons in a given sample who can be rigidly defined as
being more like everyone else in that type than they are
like anyone outside the type. Variance in size of item
clusters defining types of persons and variance in numbers
of persons defining types requires a classification prom
cedure which permits flexibility in those parameters. A
hierarchical pattern analytic structure would be expected
to be mostsensitive to such variation in classification
parameters as well as sensitive to the above measurement

assumptions.

 

 

16

Pattern analysis, as conceived by McQuitty (1957) is
especially sensitive to configural relationships among var-
iables and can classify people (as well as variables, items,
responses, tests) in terms of the interaction variance
between responses that determines the configural relation—
ships. Hierarchical classification by Reciprocal Pairs
(McQuitty, 1966) is a procedure recently developed which
also takes into account greater needed flexibility in
classification as a function of degree of association
among members of a type. That is, search for types can be
made at all levels of configural association among reSponses
and people. It also re—utilizes actual responses on all
levels of re-classification. This is seen to be highly
desirable in terms of assumptions which do not have to be
made as analysis proceeds via primary classification.

Although all persons are eventually classified at
some level of analysis in a hierarchical pattern analysis,
the difficulty with the method is that all configurations
of persons yielded probably do not have theoretical
significance. In that there is no internal (within pattern
analysis) procedure for establishing significance of a
given type from among the many yielded in a hierarchical
analysis, typal status is best defined by a criterion of
theoretical significance. Empirical determination of a
theoretically significant criterion can, in fact, be most

meaningful in the mutual development of theory and

 

 

measurement. The present author is in full agreement with
McQuitty (1965) who states:
A theory concerning the nature of individual
differences in personality structure is stated
in terms of its assumptions. The assumptions
are used to generate statistical definitions
of individual differences, and the definitions
are in turn used to generate statistical
methods for isolating and describing individual
differences. The statistical methods are applied
to the data. The findings either substantiate or
fail to substantiate the definitions of individual
differences and therefore, similarly, the assump-
tions.

Thus, the present measurement model makes the St8tiSr
tical assumption that theoretical significance of a pattern,
based on configurations yielded by pattern analysis, is
best measured by internal consistency within levels of
defining dimensions representing patterns. Levels within
dimensions may be defined as high, low, and moderate based
on the sample distribution of total scale measures. Analy_
sis which yields patterns whose total scores represent
internal consistency within dimensions for each person in
the pattern is defined as a Type. Whether such types are
in fact meaningful in terms of theoretical expectations
would remain an empirical question. Types are said to be
theoretically significant only insofar as internal consis—
tency reflects measurement based on measures of theoreti-
cally related dimensions.

The pattern analytic search for modes of expression

of differentiation is exploratory in that the model must

be tested in terms of its ability to reflect basic

 

 

18

propositions regarding the theoretical concepts involved.
Secondly, it is suggested that exploration of modes of
expression of differentiation through a pattern searching
procedure is the optimal way to bring into focus the rele~
vant variables involved in the differential expression of
modes based on unique individual differences. After deter~
mining the utility of the model and confirming the basic
propositions among basic variables involved in this study,
meaningful results would imply that search for modes of
expression could best occur through use of this model in
the delineation of further expressions of individual dif-
ferences as reflected by patterns of modes of expression

of psychological differentiation. This model assumes that
meaningful relationships among personality characteristics
exist with regard to normal population. The present model
reflects differences in areas of personal functioning with-

in a framework not restricted to measures of deviancy.

 

 

METHOD

Subjects

 

Significant sex differences have been found to exist
in the measurement of field dependence~independence (Witkin,
§£_§l,, 1962). Therefore, subjects were all female under—
graduate students taking introductory psychology and educa—
tion courses at Michigan State University. Selection of
females as opposed to males occurred on the basis of greater
availability from subject pools. Age is a relatively homo-
geneous factor due to the selection procedure (Range: 17—
23 years old plus three subjects whose ages were: 29, 32,
and 33). One hundred subjects were solicited on a volun~
teer basis. The final sample consisted of 99 subjects due

to the exclusion of one foreign student from the sample.

Instruments

 

Level of psychological differentiation was measured
by scores on the field dependence—independence dimension.
These scores were obtained through the administration of
the Hidden Figures Test, an embedded-figures instrument.
The Hidden Figures Test, Test cf—l from the Educational
Testing Service Battery, represents a measure of flexi_
bility of closure as originally constructed. This is an
adaptation of Thurstone's Gottschaldt Figures Test (Thur~
stone, 1944). In relating this measure to the analytical

field approach, several studies have indicated that such a

19

   
 

20

measure reliably measures field dependence—independence,
and that flexibility of closure and field dependence—inde-
pendence dimensions are the same (Gardner, Jackson, and
Messick, 1960; Jackson, Messick, and Meyers, I964; Witkin,
g£_gl,, 1962).

The test is comprised of thirty—two patterns con—
taining an embedded figure which the subject is to locate.
All patterns are achromatic; the use of memory is required
at only a minimal level. Total number of identified
embedded figures represents the score on the field depen—
dence—independence dinension.

The test was divided into two sections; each part
has a ten minute time limit.

Defense mode was measured by scores on the dimension
of repression—sensitization as developed by Byrne (I963).
The characteristic modes of defense on this dimension
range from attempts to avoid anxiety—arousing stimuli
(repressing) to attempts to reduce anxiety by approaching
or controlling external stimuli and their consequents. Al—
though there seems to be little question that the sensitiz-
ing end of the dimension reflects maladjustment of a cer-
tain type, considerable confusion exists on the basis of
research findings regarding the relationship of the repres—

sirig end of the dimension to maladjustment. It appears

that both linear and curvilinear relationships exist depend-

ing on the population sampled (Byrne, Golightly, and Shef-

1"161d, 1965).

 

91

The R—S scale has been found to have high internal_
consistency as well as high test—retest reliability (Byrne,
Barry, and Nelson, 1963). The scale is comprised of 127
items plus filler items and is administered as the ”Health
and Opinion Inventory.” Answers to the MMPI derived scale
are true—false and are not subject to a time limit. High
scores on the scale represent the sensitizing end of the
dimension while low scores classify subjects as repressors.

Belief regarding locus of control of reinforcement in
an external as opposed to internal site has been found to
be reliably measured with the I—E scale developed by Rotter
(1966). These generalized expectancies for internal ver~
sus external control of reinforcement are predictive of
many aspects of behavior. Rotter (1966) indicates that
the scale measuring persons along this dimension should
relate to many other measures in a curvilinear fashion.

The scale has been found to be free from response~
set (Rotter, 1966). Further, it is not identical to the
measure of inner versus outer-directedness or introver-
sion. The scale was developed so as to include a mine
imum number of items which, at the same time, are reliable,
have high discriminatory validity, and high construct
validity as measured by ability to predict differences
in behavior for individuals above or below the median of
thee scale, or from correlations with behavioral criteria

(RCDtter, 1966). High scores represent externalization.

 

 

22

Twenty-three items represent measures in this scale (plus

six filler items).

Procedure

 

The instruments were administered in a group to sub-
jects who volunteered. Subjects were tested in ten group
sessions during which each subject took the entire battery.
The tests were administered according to the following
order: (I) The I—E Scale; (2) The Hidden-Figures Test;
(3) The R—S Scale. Subjects were told that their scores
would be kept confidential. Subjects were tested in one
classroom used for all sessions. The tests were adminis-
tered by the author.

Instructions for the R—S and Hidden-Figures Tests
were as printed in standard fashion on the test booklets.
Subjects were given no help with regard to questions about
individual items. Instructions for the I~E Scale were as
follows:

You are being asked to answer questions regarding
what kinds of factors influence events and peOple's
lives. Please answer according to how you see the
influence of these various factors. There are no
right or wrong answers. You must make a choice;
between two views for each question. Please answer

every question. The test is untimed, but generally
your first response is the best.

 

 

RESULTS

Responses given by the 99 female subjects on each
of the three instruments represent similar distributions
found with respect to similar samples of subjects. Dis—
tributions achieved are very satisfactory for the purpose
of pattern analysis. Data concerning the distributions of
total scores on each dimension are given in Table 1.
TABLE l.—-Range of scores, standard deviations, means,
medians, and quartiles for total scores on measures of

repression-sensitization, internalization—externalization,
and field dependence—independence.

 

 

 

, Lower Upper
Test Range SD Mean Median Quartile Quartile
R-S 9—86 17.6 38.6 35.1 23.99 48.91
I—E 1-17 3.8 7.97 7.91 4.95 10.12
FD-FI 2—25 5.6 11.69 11.20 6.77 15.91

On the R-S scale, responses to each question were

I

assigned a zero designation when answered ”false,' and a
one designation when answered ”true.” The forced~choice

"a” and ”b” answers on the I-E scale were assigned ones
and zeros in the same fashion. Because ”T—F” and ”a~b”
reSponses on the R—S and I—E scales are not consistent with
Scale directionality, configural scoring is independent of
mlch directional scaling; thus, agreement between items

does not reflect the same direction across items. It may

23

24

be configurally meaningful for agreement to occur with
regard to either direction. On the FD—FI measure, correct
responses were designated by ones, while incorrect
responses were assigned zeros. These dichotomous scores
were pooled into a common item pool across all subjects.

Agreement scores have been found to reflect config~
ural relationships between responses (Zubin, 1938). An
agreement score would represent the degree of association
between pairs of persons across items. If two persons
have an agreement score of 100 out of a possible 182, it
would indicate that these two people gave identical
responses to 100 items from a pool of 182. Such high
agreement would indicate that these two persons have some—
thing in common which can be defined by the items on which
they agree. If these two persons are compared on the basis
of the items on which they agree with other persons whose
responses to those items reflect some basic level of agree~
ment, then a new category of kind of person can be described
by the new, shared common item pool. In other words, sch
<cessive computation of agreement matrices at successive
'levels of approximation of optimal level of agreement
between persons would yield a hierarchical structure which
Classifies people according to the configural relationships
mncmg responses (expressed by agreement scores).

Using the common item pool derived after the dichoto—
mOLlS scoring procedure, an agreement matrix was formed be— M

tWeen all pairs of subjects with respect to their responses

 

25

on all items. This agreement matrix was then pattern
analyized (by use of the Michigan State University 3600
digital computer) utilizing the method of Hierarchical
Classification by Reciprocal Pairs. This method recomputes
successive agreement matrices so as to best yield a hier-
archical structure representative of the varied levels of
association (agreement scores) between persons. Clusters
of persons were yielded which met the pattern definition at
all levels of agreement: Every member of the pattern must
be more like every other member than he is like any person
outside the pattern. Definition of clusters was made by
the identification of the items on which members of the
cluster agree.

In all, 94 clusters of people emerged from the anal-
ysis. Classification occurred by combining all persons
into three major clusters on the basis of common agreement
on one to ten items. These clusters were representative
of clusters which combine to form the successive levels of
the hierarchy as a function of the configural patterning
of people described at varying levels of agreement between
unique combinations of items (and responses). The analysis
terminated when all persons had been classified at their
lowest level in the hierarchy as represented by the emer—
germe of several clusters of pairs of persons who agree

rwather highly with regard to their responses to unique subm

Séits of items.

 

o, a...
..u..xz..‘..¥_.....

 

26

In order to determine whether or not a cluster is
theoretically significant, a method was devised to designate
clusters as types depending on whether or not all the mem-
bers of each cluster were internally consistent according
to total scores levels; these levels were defined by using
quartiles to establish the following catagories within

dimensions:

CE
II

high
(sensitized)
(externalized)
(field—independent)
M = moderate
L = low
repressed)
internalized)
(field—dependent)

Thus, in order to define clusters as types according
to the definition that each member must be like every
other member in relation to level of total scores, only
those clusters were accepted wherein each member scored at
the same level (as defined above) in each of the three
dimensions.

Implementation of this criterion to all clusters
yielded a total of seven clusters which were defined as
types. Table 2 indicates these seven types.

Twenty other possible combinations of levels exist

tult did not emerge in the pattern analysis. The emergence

01‘ seven types from a group of 94 clusters is reflective

01‘ the number of types possible at the particular levels of

 

 

27

TABLE 2.-—Definition of types by their total score levels
as produced by pattern analysis of configural responses by
Hierarchical Classification by Reciprocal Pairs.

 

 

 

 

Level of Number of persons
Type Association Comprising Type
*HHH 77 3
LLL 142 2
MMH 127 2
MMM 134 2
MML 131 2
LMH 141 2
MLH 141 2
*Order of designation is as follows: R—S; I-E; FD_FI.

association (72-142) and indicative of those which achieved
internal consistency as defined.

Eighty—four persons were not classified into types.
Many of these persons were represented by clusters at the
next higher or lower level of classification and are, in
many ways similar, to the persons typed.

Use of adouble—classification restriction (McQuitty‘s
pattern definition and the present typal definition) has
the effect of classifying only a small segment of any given
sample into types. However, this double classification
restriction is imposed in the exploratory approach so as to
determine definition of basic configural relationships.
Success in achieving such definitions over~rides nonclassi~
fication of all subjects which could not occur meaningfully
CH? with the same internal consistency without inclusion of
achitional dimensions into the model. These dimensions

WCNJld be more characteristic of their particular patterns

01'.modes of expression of differentiation.

 

 

28

Items which specifically define the type listed in

Table 2 will be presented in Appendix A.

 

 

DISCUSSION

Results indicates that the measurment model is able
to describe expression of modes of psychological differen—
tiation in a meaningful and yet complex fashion based on
configural relationships among basic variables considered.
The exploratory nature of the present study reveals both
the utility of the model in describing types of persons
who represent patterns of modes of expression and the
basic prOpositions derived from previous research and/or
theoretical formulations regarding the nature of the ex-
pression of differentiation as it occurs in different ways
in different people.

The results are indicative of the feasibility of
including a configural variable into a pattern model which
serves the purpose of mediating between the general per-
sonality variable under consideration and its modes of
expression. Such mediation reflects and defines con—
sistency among related variables, as a function of critical
tmfliaviorial criteria such as presence or absence of mal-
adaptive functioning.

In the present study the variable was defined by
rmnasures of perception of internal versus external control
0f I”einforcement which served as an index of integration
amorig modes of expression of differentiation. The configu—

ral differences among modes, as a function of presence or

29

 

 

3O

lack of integration related quite consistently to path—
ological versus non—pathological modes of expression of
differentiation.

Lack of integration and consequent pathological mode
of expression is represented by the two types, HHH and LLL.
In type HHH, lack of integration with respect to differen-
tiation is shown by the fact that a type of persons exists
who maintain a belief regarding locus of reinforcement
which is the polar opposite expected for highly differen—
tiated persons. Pathological mode of expression in defense
style is consistent with this lack of integration in that
these persons employ sensitizing defenses. These are the
kinds of defenses known to be representative of differen_
tiated persons whose behavior is considered to be patholog-
ical. Reliance on external standards is also related to
sensitization in that much sensitizing behavior is seen as
an attempt to manipulate the environment rather than a
reliance on internal sources of control. It is possible,
111 viewing this configuration, that lack of integration
occmdrred as a result of failure to learn to attend to al-
ready developed internal cues. Speculation concerning the
antenzedents for development of this mode of expression of
diffkerentiation would suggest parental models who are dif_
ferenqtiated in the field dependence-independence sense, but
who afilso employ an undifferentiated characteristic mode of
I’eSpOnse toward the child. Modeling with a differentiated

parent: may be highly related to development of

IIIIIIIIIIIIII-—___________________________

 

31

differentiation in the child. However, undifferentiated,
pathological responses of the parent to the behavior of

the child may serve to set up conditions whereby the

child is constantly focused on the inappropriate, external,
punishing world. Dimensions in which such lack of differ—
entiated responses on the parts of parents occur may be
highly related to attitudes regarding expressions of depen—
dency needs on the part of children of these differentiated
parents.

Type LLL reflects lack of integration in that undif-
ferentiated persons are not seen as being highly deveIOped
in the area of acquisition of internal frames of reference.
In that optimal levels of internalization—externalization
may occur at the moderate level of this dimension, internal—
ization may here refer to extreme reliance on internal
sources of coping with pathological expression of differen-
tiation which is expressed by over—utilization of the
defense mechanism of repression. Defense theory is con-
sistent with this interpretationin that repressors are
seen to be defending more against internal anxiety—arousing
cues than external. Thus, an undifferentiated, global
response to internal anxiety may reflect itself through use
of repression as a means of coping. This may also reflect
attitudes regarding belief about how one should best deal
With threat as evidenced by the response of parents who
are repressive and undifferentiated toward children's at~

tempts to express feelings and attitudes.

 

 

 

The proposition that integrative modes of expression
of differentiation can occur at all levels of differentia—
tion is supported by the emergence of types MML, MMM, MMH,
MLH. Although it can be stated that these persons' defense
mode and level of internalization reflect their integra—
tive, non—pathological modes of expression of differentia—
tion, it is immediately obvious that more definitive expres—
sion of modes of differentiation among integrated persons
would be characterized by consideration of other patterns
of meaningful personality dimensions. Use of the present
model would aid in the determination of dimensions in that
they no doubt vary across wide groups of people.

It is with regard to these moderate levels of typing
that consideration of the next important steps for research
come. Determination of the variables which would serve to
describe these persons into more well—defined typologies on
the basis of the fewest additional dimensions should occur.
The intent would be to describe more persons within any
given sub—population into more types on the basis of min—
imal addition of variables as the method proceeds.

Although integrative functioning is well reflected
by the moderate levels of defense mode and internalization
which combine with low and moderate and high differentia—
tion, type MLH is indicative of the strongest theoretical
relationship said to exist among integrated, highly differ-
entiated persons. These are persons who strongly rely on

highly developed internal frames of reference; their

 

33

integrationexpressesitself’through.the utilization mod-
erate levels of defensiveness. It is suggested that extreme
internalization in this case involves a different sub—set

of items which reflect this non—pathological extreme in
internalization as opposed to the sub—set of items which
define type LLL.

Type LMM seems to represent what can be termed the
”healthy repressor.” In that repression is seen to func—
tion as an adaptive defense which has a conflict—solving
function, it is conceivable that persons who score at the
repressing end of the R-S dimension may be utilizing their
defense mode in a successful fashion. Meaning of repres—
sive defensiveness depends on what is being repressed.
Conflicts other than sexual and aggressive may be success—
fully resolved through the utilization of repression. This
is consistent with Sappenfield's (1965) theory of the
adaptive function of defense mechanisms. It is also pos—
sible that these persons are not ”denying” by giving an—
swers opposite of sensitizing, but are only being honest
with regard to lack of self—awareness. This may also be

considered ”repressive.”

Research Implications

 

Cross-validation of present findings is needed.
Identification of modes of expression of differentiation
in samples of male subjects, younger and older age groups,

and defined sub—populations can occur in conjunction with

 

34

the inclusion of new variables which may better define
differing patterns of modes of expression.

The exploratory nature of the present study has been
shown to be productive in determining modes of expression
of differentiation: Exploratory research also aids in the
re-defining of a measurement model which proceeds along
empirical lines. In that some aspects of the model are
subject to change as a function of differing dimensions
relevant to expression of mode among various sub—popula—
tions, a flexible model is especially sensitive to the
many parameters needed in the consideration of the complex
field of individual differences. The most basic research
implication is that determination of modes of expression
of differentiation should proceed in a systematic manner
designed to utilize the flexibility in the model; this
flexibility is seen to represent the prOposition that
individual differences are most meaningfully described in
terms of communality among basic personality dimensions
if unique modes of personal functioning are included as a
way of describing the interaction between communality and
uniqueness of human behavior. Measurement approaches
which tend to emphasize only one aspect are in opposition
to the configural model.

Further research would be expected to best proceed
by making the same assumptions regarding additivity within
personality dimensions; that is, it is assumed that well-

designed measurement scales reflect general directionality

 

 

 

35

within dimensions, but that linear addition of all responses
violates differential validity concepts. Use of inter-
item response comparisons and the use of levels of scale
scores, in combination, suggest that dimensions be sought
in which individual responses and levels of dimensionality
have theoretical meaning. Dimensions in which moderate
levels have differential validity and configural explana—
tory value unique from that of extreme levels would be more
compatible to the present model. A mixed—model (correla-
tional and pattern analytic) might best, at this point,

aid in the determination of such dimensions through the
utilization of regression equations to determine existence
of curvilinearity among measures as well as to provide an
initial description of relationships among major person—
ality dimensions. Selection of measures on this basis, to
then be included in the pattern analytic model, may prove
to be the most descriptive and economical. Further, dimen—
sions which reflect presence or lack of integretation of
differentiation should be identified and utilized in further
search for patterns of modes of expression of differentia—
tion.

Specific implications for research utilizing the
present model have special possibilities in the area of
behavioral change. Psychology is at present concerned
with the development and identification of critical areas
for implementation of change in attitudes toward child-

rearing, inter—personal relations, and with regard to

 

 

 

 

36

specific areas of personal functioning. A model which
seeks to determine highly configural modes of expression
of basic personality characteristics would seem to also
be capable of yielding a method for the identification of
persons who are differentially receptive to patterns of
educative or treatment programs. Traditional approaches
to change inducement typically impose singular techniques
which may be highly irrelevant to individual differences
in modes of expression of even basically similar kinds of
difficulties in personal functioning. Identification of
unique modes of expression of differentiation in conjunc—
tion with inducement of change approaches which are highly
focused on the particular uniqueness of mode of expression
will probably lead to better results. This would be vali-
dated by research on both process and outcome variables
which have heretofore produced largely negative findings
due to insensitivity to individual differences in treat-
ment populations. Positive results have no doubt been
masked by attempts to treat persons with invariant
approaches and/or by measurement models which assume that
measurement (additive) on single variables is meaningful.
For example, in psychotherapy process research, the
theoretical meaning and psychometric measurement of a vari~
able such as dependency would be expected, in the present
rnodel, to achieve greater predictive significance if it
can be described in terms of its relationship to other

aspects of modes of expression of differentiation for

 

 

37

Specific persons. Measurement of approach to dependency
in the psychotherapy setting would then reflect its
increased, unique significance based on its configural
relationship to basic modes of expression of differentia-
tion

Along the same lines, identification of character—
istics expressive of presence of lack of integrative func—
tioning and their representation in patterns of responses
of specific persons may lead to greater utility in under—
standing maladaptive behavior within a non—pathological
model. This would be consistent with present trends to
understand occurrence of maladaptive behavior in terms of
specific variables and behaviors unique to the person and
the situation in which he finds himself. Areas expres—
sive of lack of integration no doubt vary widely among
peOple: Specification of these areas may prove economical
if change inducement programs can be focused on these
critical areas of personal functioning. An important
question arises: Would focused approach to areas identi—
fied as reflective of lack of integration in persons lead
to integrative changes in these persons as expressed by
.greater integration across all relevant areas of personal
functioning? Research based on identification of these
areas and measurement of change in patterns of modes of
.functioning may result in greater understanding of many

complex aspects of human development.

 

 

SUMMARY

This study represents an attempt to describe persons
with respect to their unique modes of expression of psycho—
logical differentiation. A measurement model was conceived
on the basis of a configural statistical procedure, assump-
tions concerning differential Validity of configural scoring
of item responses, and internal consistency within levels
of dimensions expressive of level of differentiation.

The model is presented so as to provide a basis for
identification of modes of expression of differentiation
across broad ranges of personality dimensions and persons.
Validation of the model is represented by acceptance of
propositions concerning basic variables reflective of
expression of differentiation.

The concept of integration is employed in the model
with respect to measures of defense mode and expectancy for
internal versus external control of reinforcement and the
configural relationship of the dimensions to level of psy-
chological differentiation. Level of differentiation is
said to be independent of integration; integration (or lack
of it) can occur at all levels of differentiation. Form of
integrative behaviors is said to be indicative of expression
of differentiation in maladaptive terms. Variables expres~
sive of lack of integration, at the specified level of dif-
ferentiation aid in the description of the consequent ex-

pression of maladaptive functioning.

38

 

 

39

Propositions proposed were: (1) Integration will
occur at all levels of differentiation. (2) Pathological
forms of expression of high and low levels of differentia-
tion would be reflected by lack of integration expressed by
inconsistency between level of differentiation and internal—
ization—externalization.

Ninety—nine undergraduate female subjects were admin-
istered the revised Repression—Sensitization Scale, as a
measure of defense mode, the Internalization-Externaliza—
tion Scale, as a measure of expectancy regarding locus of
reinforcement, and the Hidden-Figures Test, a measure of
field dependence-independence indicative of level of dif-
ferentiation. Individual, pooled responses were converted
to agreement scores and then pattern analyzed by the method,
Hierarchical Classification by Reciprocal Pairs. Ninety-
four clusters were yielded. Definition of clusters as
types occurred on the basis of application of a messure
of internal consistency within levels of dimensions
employed. Seven theoretically significant types emerged
from a possible twenty—seven. Levels of association
representing each type were high. Propositions were sup—
ported by the emergence of the particular types.

All types were consistent with the expectation
that the integrative hypothesis would reflect form of
expression of internalization and defense mode as a func—
tion of level of differentiation; concurrently, integration

Was found to occur at all levels of differentiation.

 

40

Lack of integration was expressed by the defense modes
expected to relate to the particular form of lack of inte—
gration and level of differentiation at which it occurred.

The facility of the measurement model to yield theor
retically consistent and unusually definitive representa—
tions of communality and uniqueness in individual differ—
ences among persons, based on a pattern search for varied
modes of expression of differentiation, was shown to have
wide—spread implications for further research. Implications
were cited with respect to the dimensions currently studied,
the concept of integration in a configural model, and with
regard to general measurement problems in the area of per—

sonality study.

 

 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

41

 

 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bell, E. G. Inner—directed and other directed attutudes.
Unpublished Ph. D. dissertation, New York University,
1955.

Byrne, D., Barry, J., and Nelson, D. Relation of the
revised Repression—Sensitization Scale to measures
of self-description. Psychol. Rep., 1963 23, 323—334.

Byrne, D., Golightly, C., and Sheffield, J. The Repression—
Sensitization Scale as a measure of adjustment: Rela~
tionship with the CPI. J. consult. Psychol., 1965,
29, 586—589.

Gardner, R. W., Jackson, D. N., and Messick, S. Personality
Organization in cognitive controls and intellectual
abilities. Psychol. Issues, 1960, 2;, Monograph 8.

 

Jackson, D. N. A short form of Witkin's embedded—figures
test. J. abnorm. soc. Psychol., 1956, 53, 254—255.

 

Jackson, D. N. Intellectual ability and mode of perception.
J. consult. Psychol., 1957, 22, 458.

 

Jackson, D. N., Messick, S., and Myers, C. T. Evaluation
of group and individual forms of embedded—figures
measures of field-independence. Educ. and psychol.
Meas., 1964, 24, 177—192.

 

Linton, H. B. Dependence on external influence: correlates
in perception, attitudes, and judgement. J. abnorm
soc. Psychol., 1955, 52, 502—507.

Loevinger, J. Person and population as psychometric con-
cepts. Psychol. Rev., 1965, Z2, 143—155.

McQuitty, L. L. A pattern analysis of descriptions of
"best” and ”poorest” mechanics compared with factor
analytic results. Psychol. Monog., 1957, 12, No. 446,
17.

MCQuitty, L. L. The mutual development of some theories of
types and some pattern analytic methods. Pres. Ad—
dress, Div. V, Evaluation and Measurement, APA, 1965.

MCQuitty, L. L. Single and multiple hierarchical classifi-
cation by reciprocal pairs. Educ. and psychol. Meas.,
1966, 25, 253—265.

 

 

 

 

43

Meehl, P. E. Configural scoring. J. consult. Psychol.,
1950, 13, 165—171.

 

Rotter, J. B. Generalised expectancies for internal—versus
eXternal control of reinforcement. Psychol. Monog.,
1966, 89, No. 609, l.

Rudin, S. A., and Stagner, R. Figure—ground phenomena in
perception of physical and social stimuli. J. Psy-
chol., 1958, 45, 213—255.

Sangiuliano, I. A. An investigation of the relationship
between the perception of the upright in space and
several factors in personality organization. Unpub—
lished Ph. D. dissertation, 1951, Fordham University.

Sheerer, C. Cognition: Theory, Research, Promise. New
York: Harper and Row, 1964, pp. 172—205.

 

 

Thurstone, L. L. A factorial study of perception. Psycho-
metric Monograph No. 4, University of Chicago.

 

Witkin, H. A., Lewis, H. B., Hertzman, M., Machover, K.,
Meissner, P., and Wapner, S. Personality through Per—
ception. New York: Harper, 1954.

 

Witkin, H. A., Dyk, R. B., Faterson, H. F., Goodenough, D.R.
and Karp, S. A. Psychological Differentiation. New
York: John Wiley and Sons, 1962.

 

Witkin, H. A. Psychological Differentiation. J. abnorm
soc. Psychol., 1965, 19, 317-332.

Zubin, J. A. A technique for measuring like mindedness.
J. abnorm. soc. Psychol., 1938 33, 508—516.

 

 

 

APPENDIX A

ITEM DEFINITION OF TYPES

44

 

 

 

 

mm sm mm as mm as mm sm
om ms ss as as ms ms a w s e m s m s amuse
mm mm mm
mm mm mm sm om ms es ms ss as a s e m m mus
mws sws
ass ass mss mss sss oss mes ems mes ses mes ses oes wms ems ems
mms sms ass was was mas ass mas mas sss mms ems ems mms sms mms
sms oms wms ems mms mms oms mss mss mss sss oss sos mos sos mm
as mm mm as mm so om mm gm mm am sw ow as as
ms as me me me mm mm mm sm om ms A: es as N:
s: mm mm mm mm mm mm om as as as ms as w a mix
msonazz EopH osdom
ms: mass o2s2smmm mzmes

 

 

46

 

Hm

ass
mms
omH
em

om
mm

mus
mms
mHH
mm
s:

as
mm

mes
sms
:HH
mm
mm

ma
mm

ass
mza
NHH

Rm

:H
mm

osa
mzs
HHH
we
mm

mos
was
nos
we
mm

NH

Hm

mos
mas
mos
mm
mm

mm
HH

ma

mms
ans
nos
ms
em

sm
OH

NH

:ms
Ana
NQH
mm
mm

om
m

©H

mms
mms
HQH

mm
mm

mm

ms

mes
ems
mm
S
sm

mm

HH

owa
mma
mm
cm
as

mm

mm

oma
mms
mms
so
mm
m

mm

H thHm
m MIH

mes

mms

mmH

mm

om

m mlm

 

 

whenesz EopH

osmom

 

 

ASS mmwe UZHZHEMQ mZMEH

 

 

 

47

 

Hm

OOH
was
mos
we
mm

ON

ems
mss
sos
me
em

OH
mm

mos
m:H
NOH

mm
mm

wH
ON

mms
sss
mm
em
mm

es
mm

mos
mms
em

OO
em

ms
mm

oms
ems
mm
mm
mm

:H
Hm

mm
om
mm
ow
mm

mm Hm om
MH mH HH OH

OH mH MH HH

mms sms

s mms ems mms mms
s mms ems mms sms
mm mm mm em

mm mm om ms

sm om es ms

OH

OOH
:mH
:HH
mm

:H

mm

mes
mms
mss

mm
NH

Hms
mHH
HO
3:

ON

:es
mas
HHH
om

mm

mes

was
mos
me

s:

:m

m QmIHm
m mlH
Oes

ezs

eos

ee

mm

m mlm

 

wmoQEsz Sous

osmom

 

222 mmwa OZHZHMMQ wSmBH

 

 

 

48

Nm HO ON ON :N ON NN 2H NH s O z N H Dmle
ON ON ON ON NN HN OH OH NH HH O N O O r m MIH

NOH ONH ONH :NH ONH HNH ONH
OOH NOH OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH NOH OOH OOH :OH OOH NOH OJH O:H 53H OzH 33H mzH NzH HzH
OOH OOH NMH OOH :mH NOH HOH ONH eNH ONH NNH ONH :HH HHH OHH OOH OOH :OH NOH HOH OO NO
OO :O MO HO om OO OO OO HO OO Oe ee Oe oe OO eO OO OO MO 0O OO OO
NO HO OO O: s: O: H: Om Om em Om NO ON eN ON OH NH OH NH OH O O mlm

 

muonssz Eons osMom

 

m2: mmMB OZHZHOMQ OEMBH

 

 

49

 

ON

oms
Ne

:N

eNH
OO

NN

oms
mms
em

ON

:es
ONH
OO

OH

eOs
NHH
NO

OH
ON

OOH
HHH
OO

es
mN
OOH

OHH
O:

OH :H OH NH HH
NN HN ON OH NH
mms Nms Oas ens Oqs

mos mos mm sm om
ms ms em sm om

Nm
OH

NJH

OO
OH

HO

Oms

NO
es

om

:ms
:H

ON

H QmIHm
N mIH
sms

Oe

OH mlm

 

mponasz Sous

osmom

 

mmm mmwe OszHmma mSmBH

5o

 

 

Nm sm om ON eN ON
:N NN OH OH eH OH :H HH OH O O e O O : O QmIHm
ON ON ON ON NN ON OH es OH OH NH HH OH O O : MIH
NOH HOH
OOH OeH OeH OeH NeH OOH eOH OOH OOH :OH OOH NOH OOH OOH eOH OOH OOH
:OH OOH NOH HOH O:H O:H e:H O:H O:H ::H O:H N:H H:H OOH OOH eOH OOH
OOH :OH HOH ONH NNH ONH OHH :HH OHH NHH HHH OHH OOH eOH OOH :OH NOH
OO OO :O OO HO OO OO O OO NO 0O Oe Oe Ne oe OO OO
eO OO OO OO OO OO OO OO OO NO HO OO O: e: N: H: OO
OO em OO NO eN ON ON HN ON OH eH OH NH O O O N mlm
whenezz Eons osdom

 

sad mmwe OZHZHOMO mszH

51

 

 

NO HO OO ON ON eN
ON ON :N OH es OH :H OH NH HH OH O O : O N QmIHm
ON ON NN HN ON OH OH OH OH HH O e O : O N MIH
HOH OOH OeH :eH OeH NeH HeH
oeH OOH eOH OOH OOH :OH NOH OOH OOH eOH OOH OOH :OH OOH NOH HOH
O:H O:H e:H O:H O:H ::H O:H N:H H:H eOH OOH OOH :OH NOH HOH OOH
ONH eNH ONH NNH HNH OHH :HH OHH NHH OHH OOH eOH :OH HOH OO eO
OO mO HO OO OO OO eO OO :O NO sO OO Oe ee Ne oe
OO OO eO OO OO OO OO OO mO NO OO O: e: O: :: N:
H: OO OO OO ON eN ON ON ON eH :H NH O O O N mlm
muonssz sous osmom

 

22s mmee ostHsmo names

 

 

 

APPENDIX B

REPRESSION-SENSITIZATION SCALE

52

 

53

HEALTH AND OPINION SURVEY

 

 

This inventory consists of numbered Section Of
statements. Read each statement and de- answer sheet
cide whether it is true as applied to you correctly
or false as applied to you. marked.

You are to mark your answer on the T

answer sheet you have. Look at the example
of the answer sheet shown at the right.

If a statement is TRUE or MOSTLY TRUE, as A
applied to you, blacken between the lines
in the column headed T. (See A at the B

right.) If a statement is FALSE or NOT
USUALLY TRUE, as applied to you, blacken
between the lines in the column headed F.
(See B at the right.) If a statement does
not apply to you or if it is something
that you don‘t know about, make no mark on
the answer sheet.

Remember to give YOUR OWN opinion of yourself.
Do not leave any blank spaces if you can avoid it.

In marking your answers on the answer sheet, be sure
that the number of the statement agrees with the number on
the answer sheet. Make your marks heavy and black. Erase
completely any answer you wish to change. Do not make any
marks on this booklet.

 

Remember, try to make some answer to every statement.

NOW OPEN THE BOOKLET AND GO AHEAD

 

 

[U

.

o

10.
ll.

l2.

l3.
14.

15.
16.
17.
18.
19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

\OCDNChUl—Irw

54

I have a good appetite.

I wake up fresh and rested most mornings.

I am easily awakened by noise.

I like to read newspaper articles on crime.

My hands and feet are usually warm enough.

My daily life is full of things that keep me interested.
I am about as able to work as I ever was.

There seems to be a lump in my throat much of the time.
I enjoy detective or mystery stories.

Once in a while I think of things too bad to talk about.
I am very seldom troubled by constipation.

At times I have fits of laughing and crying that I
cannot control.

I am troubled by attacks of nausea and vomiting.

I feel that it is certainly best to keep my mouth shut
when I'm in trouble.

At times I feel like swearing.

I find it hard to keep my mind on a task or job.

I seldom worry about my health.

At times I feel like smashing things.

I have had periods of days, weeks, or months when I
couldn't take care of things because I couldn't ”get
going.H

My sleep is fitful and disturbed.

Much of the time my head seems to hurt all over.

I do not always tell the truth.

My judgment is better than it ever was.

Oncea week or oftener I feel suddenly hot all over,
without apparent cause.

 

 

25.

26.

27.

28.
29.

30.
31.
32.

33.

34.
35.
36.

37.
38.

39.

40.

41.

42.

43.

44.
45.

I am in just as good physical health as most of my
friends.

I prefer to pass by school friends, or people I know
but have not seen for a long time, unless they speak
to me first.

I am almost never bothered by pains over the heart
or in my chest.

I am a good mixer.

Everything is turning out just like the prophets of
the Bible said it would.

I do not read every editorial in the newspaper every
day.

I sometimes keep on at a thing until others lose their
patience with me.

I wish I could be as happy as others seem to be.

I think a great many people exaggerate their mis-
fortunes in order to gain the sympathy and help of
others.

I get angry sometimes.

Most of the time I feel blue.

I sometimes tease animals.

I am certainly lacking in self—confidence.

I usually feel that life is worthwhile.

It takes a loss of argument to convince most people of
the truth.

Once in a while I put off until tomorrow what I ought
to do today.

I think most people would lie to get ahead.

I do many things I regret afterwards.

I go to church almost every week.

I have very few quarrels with members of my family.

I believe in the second coming of Christ.

 

 

46.
47.

48.
49.
5o.

51.

53.

54.

55.

56.

57.

58.

59.
60.

61.

62.

63.

64.

56

My hardest battles are with myself.

I have little or no trouble with my muscles twitching
or jumping.

I don't seem to care what happens to me.
Sometimes when I am not feeling well I am cross.

Much of the time I feel as if I have done something
wrong or evil.

I am happy most of the time.

Some people are so bossy that I feel like doing the’
opposite of what they request, even though I know
they are right.

Often I feel as if there were a tight band about
my head.

My table manners are not quite as good at home as
when I am out in company.

I seem to be about as capable and smart as most others
around me.

Most people will use somewhat unfair means to gain
profit or an advantage rather than to lose it.

The sight of blood neither frightens me nor makes me
sick.

Often I can't understand why I have been so cross and
grouchy.

I have never vomited blood or coughed up blood.
I do not worry about catching diseases.

At times my thoughts have raced ahead faster than I
could speak them.

If I could get into a movie without paying and be
sure I was not seen I would probably do it.

I commonly wonder what hidden reason another person
has for doing something nice for me.

I believe that my home life is as pleasant as that of
most people I know.

 

 

57

65. Criticism or scolding hurts me terribly.

66. My conduct is largely controlled by the customs of
those about me.

67. I certainly feel useless at times.

 

68. At times I feel like picking a fist fight with someone.

69. I have often lost out on things because I couldn't
make up my mind soon enough.

70. It makes me impatient to have people ask my advice or
otherwise interrupt me when I am working on something
important.

71. I would rather win than lose in a game.

72. Most nights I go to sleep without thoughts or ideas
bothering me.

 

73. During the past few years I have been well most of the
time.

74. I have never had a fit or convulsion.

75. I am neither gaining or losing weight.

76. I cry easily.

77. I cannot understand what I read as well as I used to.
78. I have never felt better in my life than I do now.

79. I resent having anyone take me in so cleverly that I
have to admit that it was one on me.

80. I do not tire quickly.

81. I like to study and read about things that I am
working at.

82. I like to know some important people because it makes
me feel important.

83. What others think of me does not bother me.

84. It makes me uncomfortable to put on a stunt at a party
even when others are doing the same sort of thing.

85. I frequently have to fight against showing that I am
bashful.

 

86.
87.
88.
89.
90.
91.
92.
93.

94.
95.
96.
97.

98.

99.
100.
101.
102.
103.

104.

105.
106.

107.

108.

58

I have never had a fainting spell.

I seldom or never have dizzy spells.

My memory seems to be all right.

I am worried about sex matters.

I find it hard to make talk when I meet new pe0ple.
I am afraid of losing my mind.

I am against giving money to beggers.

I frequently notice my hand shakes when I try to do
something.

I can read a long while without tiring my eyes.
I feel weak all over much of the time.
I have very few headaches.

Sometimes. when embarrassed, I break out in a sweat
which annoys me greatly.

I have had no difficulty in keeping my balance in
walking.

I do not have spells of hay fever or asthma.

I do not like everyone I know.

I wish I were not so shy.

I enjoy many different kinds of play and recreation.
I like to flirt.

In walking I am very careful to step over sidewalk
cracks.

I frequently find myself worrying about something.
I gossip a little at times.

I hardly ever notice my heart pounding and I am seldom
short of breath.

I have at times stood in the way of people who were
trying to do something, not because it amounted to
much but because of the principle of the thing.

 

 

109.
110.

111.

112.

113.
114.

115.

116.

117.

118.
119.
120.
121.

122.

123.

124.

125.
126.

127.

128.

129.

I get mad easily and then get over it soon.
I brood a great deal.

I have periods of such great restlessness that I can
not sit long in a chair.

I dream frequently about things that are best kept to
myself.

I believe I am no more nervous than most others.

I have few or no pains.

Sometimes without any reason or even when things are
going wrong I feel excitedly happy, ”on top of the

world.

I can be friendly with people who do things which I
consider wrong.

Sometimes at elections I vote for men about whom I
know very little.

I have difficulty in starting to do things.

I sweat very easily even on cool days.

It is safer to trust nobody.

Once a week or oftener I become very excited.

When in a group of people I have trouble thinking of
the right things to talk about.

When I leave home I do not worry about whether the
door is locked and the windows closed.

I do not blame a person for taking advantage of someone

who lays himself open to it.
At times I am all full of energy.
My eyesight is as good as it has been for years.

I have often felt that strangers were looking at me
critically.

I drink an unusually large amount of water every day.

Once in a while I laugh at a dirty joke.

 

 

130.

131.
132.

133.

134.

135..
136.

137.

138.
139.
140.
141.
142.

143.

144.
145.

146.

147.
148.

149.

150.

60
I am always disgusted with the law when a criminal is
freed through the arguments of a smart lawyer.
I work under a great deal of tension.

I am likely not to speak to people until they speak
to me

I have periods in which I feel unusually cheerful
without any special reason.

Life is a strain for me much of the time.
In school I found it very hard to talk before the class.

Even when I am with peOple I feel lonely much of the
time.

I think nearly anyone would tell a lie to keep out of
trouble.

I am easily embarrassed.

I worry over money and business.

I almost never dream.

I easily become inpatient with people.

I feel anxiety about something or someone about all
the time.

Sometimes I become so excited that I find it hard to
get to sleep.

I forget right away what people say to me.

I usually have to stop and think before I act even in
trifling matters.

Often I cross the street in order not to meet someone
I see.

I often feel as if things were not real.

I have a habit of counting things that are not impor—
tant such as bulbs on electric signs, and so forth.

I have strange and peculiar thoughts.

I get anxious and upset when I have to make a short
trip away from home.

151.

152.

153.

154.

155.

156.

157.
158.
159.
160.
161.

162.

163.
164.
165.

166.

167.

168.
169.

170.

61

I have been afraid of things or people that I knew
could not hurt me.

I have no dread of going into a room by myself where
other people have already gathered and are talking.

I have more trouble concentrating than others seem
to have.

I have several times given up doing a thing because I
thought too little of my ability.

Bad words, often terrible words, come into my mind and
I cannot get rid of them.

Sometimes some unimportant thought will run through my
mind and bother me for days.

Almost every day something happens to frighten me.

I am inclined to take things hard.

I am more sensitive than most other people.

At periods my mind seems to work more slowly than usual.
I very seldom have Spells of the blues.

I wish I could get over worrying about things I have
said that may have injured other people's feelings.

People often disappoint me.
I feel unable to tell anyone all about myself.

My plans have frequently seemed so full of difficulties
that I have had to give them up.

Often, even though everything is going fine for me,
I feel that I don't care about anything.

I have sometimes felt that difficulties were piling up
so high that I could not overcome them.

I often think, ”I wish I were a child again.”

I have often met pe0ple who were supposed to be experts
who were no better than I.

It makes me feel like a failure when I hear of the
success of someone I know well.

 

 

171.

172.

173.

174.

175.

176.

177.

178.
179.

180.

181.
182.

62

I am apt to take disappointments so keenly that I
can't put them out of my mind.

At times I think I am no good at all.

I worry quite a bit over possible misfortunes.

I am apt to pass up something I want to do because
others feel that I am not going about it in the right

way.

I find it hard to set aside a task that I have under—
taken, even for a short time.

I have several times had a change of heart about my
life work.

I must admit that I have at times been worried beyond
reason over something that really did not matter.

I like to let pe0p1e know where I stand on things.

I have a daydream life about which I do not tell
other people.

I have often felt guilty because I have pretended to
to feel more sorry about something than I really was.

I feel tired a good deal of the time.

I sometimes feel that I am about to go to pieces.

 

APPENDIX C

INTERNALIZATION—EXTERNALIZATION SCALE

63

 

I-E SCALE

On answer sheet, "1" corresponds to "a.” "2" corresponds

to "b.''

1. 8. Children get into trouble because their parents
punish them too much.
b. The trouble with most children nowadays is that
their parents are too easy with them.

2. a. Many of the unhappy things in people's lives are
partly due to bad luck.
b. People's misfortunes result from the mistakes they
make.

 

3. a. One of the major reasons why we have wars is because
people don't take enough interest in politics.
b. There will always be wars, no matter how hard people
try to prevent them.

4. a. In the long run people get the respect they deserve
in this world.
b. Unfortunately, an individual's worth often passes
unrecognized no matter how hard he tries.

5. a. The idea that teachers are unfair to students is
nonsense.
b. Most students don't realize the extent to which
their grades are influenced by accidental happenings,

6. a. Without the right breaks one cannot be an effictive
leader.
b. Capable peOple who fail to become leaders have not
taken advantage of their opportunities.

7. a. No matter how hard you try some people just don't
like you.
b. People who can't get others to like them don't
understand how to get along with others.

8. a. Heredity plays the major role in determining one's
personality.
b. It is one's experiences in life which determine
what they're like.

9. a. I have often found that what is going to happen will
happen.
64

 

 

 

10.

11.

l2.

l3.

l4.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

65

Trusting to fate has never turned out as well for
me as making a decision to take a definate course
of action.

In the case of the well prepared student there is
rarely if ever such a thing as an unfair test.
Many times exam questions tend to be so unrelated
to course work that studying is really useless.

Becoming a success is a matter of hard work, luck
has little or nothing to do with it.

Getting a good job depends mainly on being in the
right place at the right time.

The average citizen can have an influence in gov-
ernment decisions.

This world is run by the few people in power, and
there is not much the little guy can do about it.

When I make plans, I am almost certain that I can
make them work.

It is not always wise to plan too far ahead because
many things turn out to be a matter of good or bad
fortune anyhow.

There are certain people who are just no good.
There is some good in everybody.

In my case getting what I want has little or nothing
to do with luck.

Many times we might just as well decide what to do
by flipping a coin.

Who gets to be the boss often depends on who was
lucky enough to be in the right place first.
Getting people to do the right thing depends upon
ability, luck has little or nothing to do with it.

As far as world affairs are concerned, most of us
are the victims of forces we can neither understand,
nor control.

By taking an active part in political and social
affairs the people can control world events.

Most people don't realize the extent to which
their lives are controlled by accidental happenings.
There is really no such thing as ”luck."

One should always be willing to admit mistakes.
It is usually best to cover up one's mistakes.

It is hard to know whether or not a person really
likes you.

 

 

 

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

26.

27.

29.

66

How many friends you have depends upon how nice
a person you are.

In the long run the bad things that happen to us
are balanced by the good ones.

Most misfortunes are the result of lack of ability,
ignorance, laziness, or all three.

With enough effort we can wipe out political cor—
ruption.

It is difficult for people to have much control
over the things politicians do in office.

Sometimes I can't understand how teachers arrive
at the grades they give.

There is a direct connection between how hard I
study and the grades I get.

A good leader expects people to decide for them-
selves what they should do.

A good leader makes it clear to everybody what
their jobs are.

Many times I feel that I have little influence
over the things that happen to me.

It is impossible for me to believe that chance
or luck plays an important role in my life.

People are lonely because they don't try to be
friendly.

There's not much use in trying too hard to please
people, if they like you, they like you.

There is too much emphasis on athletics in high
school.
Team sports are an excellant way to build character.

What happens to me is my own doing.
Sometimes I feel that I don't have enough control
over the direction my life is taking.

Most of the time I can't understand why politicians
behave the way they do.

In the long run people are responsible for bad gOV‘
ernment on a national as well as on a local level.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I

 

999999999999

 

M11111111111IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIINES I