I Thesis for the Degree of Ph D

 

MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY
RICHARD H GATLEY
1969

 
    
   

‘ 'rnEsls

  

L Hi‘
MTLT if. ii-:°
Uan-crslty

This is to certifg that the,

thesis entitled

Happiness and Affiliafion

presented by

Richard H. GaTley

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

Ph.D. degyee in Psychology

 
    

Major pro essor

Date May I6, l969

 

 

 

 

 

 

ABSTRACT

HAPPINESS AND AFFILIATION

BY

Richard H. Gatley

Previous research having shown that peOple affil-
iate in response to various forms of stress, the present
study explored the proposition that people will also prefer
to affiliate if they are made to feel happy.

A colorful motion picture about the sport of surf-
ing was shown to 199 undergraduates in the experimental
group to produce a mood of well-being or happiness.‘ These
subjects were then compared to 183 control subjects on
three measures of happiness and affiliation: the Mood
Adjective Checklist - Happiness (MACL-H), a l4-item measure
of happiness; the IF Scale, a 50-item questionnaire devel-
oped as a measure of affiliation; and a Sign Up Sheet,
offering subjects a choice among three fictitious "studies"
which vary in affiliative potential. Birth order data were
provided by subjects on a Cover Sheet.

Experimental subjects were happier, but they were

also less, rather than more, affiliative than controls.

Richard H. Gatley

Sex differences in response to the film accounted for the
apparent contradiction. Males were happier as a result of
viewing the film, but were no more affiliative than con-
trols. On the other hand, the film did not generate a
happier mood in females, but had the unpredicted effect of
making them less affiliative than controls.

Additional hypotheses suggested by previous re-
search received little support. Happiness and affiliation
were found positively related only for females under control
conditions. Birth order, whether defined as an early-late
dichotomy, or in the more refined terms of absolute ordinal
position, proved essentially unrelated to happiness and
affiliation, save that under control conditions, early-born
females were more affiliative than those born later, a
finding consistent with earlier studies. Birth order and
the conditions of the study also interacted to affect
happiness, but only in males.

By far the most consistent finding in this study
was that males and females differ in how happy and gregar-
ious they are. Under fairly normal circumstances females
were both happier and more affiliative than males. Females
also signed up to participate in at least one of the Sign
Up Sheet studies more frequently than male subjects.

Because of the sex differences in happiness and
affiliation, single factor explanations based on the notion

that the film was not powerful enough, or conversely that

Richard H. Gatley

it provided an overabundance of affiliative cues, did not
satisfactorily account for the results. The importance of
sex as a variable in future studies of happiness and affil—
iation is clear, while further attention to birth order
seems unnecessary, except as it bears on mood variability.
Improvements in the MACL—H and IF Scale are recommended,
although both measures proved reliable and had some validity
in the study. The Sign Up Sheet, which proved insensitive
as a measure of "participation affiliation," could be

better replaced with a projective measure, or ideally, by

observation of actual affiliative behavior.

HAPPINESS AND AFFILIATION

BY

' I
'l

f’
{
Richard H? Gatley

A THESIS

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

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Department of Psychology

1969

65727?“
7,3-”

To Fran, with love.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

To Charles Hanley, for his patience, wit, and
enhancing permissiveness as chairman of the committee, I
express sincere gratitude and affection.

To Bill Kell, who helped to create the mood of
happiness which prompted the original thesis, for his
marvelous faith in peOple and its consequent effect on
both my personal and professional growth, warmest
appreciation.

To Bertram Karon, for his helpful suggestions and
good humored intelligence, my appreciation. And to Cecil
Williams, for his kindness in sitting on the committee on
short notice, and the enthusiasm with which he did so, my
sincerest thanks.

I should also like to thank Norman Abeles, an
original committee member, for facilitating the pilot
study. William Stellwagen and Dozier Thornton were very
kind and timely in helping me to obtain subjects - the
students without whom there would have been no study at
all. To these people, and to Lorraine Leonowich, Riffat
Moazam, and Dennis Pollack, who generously served as ex-
perimenters in gathering control data for the study, my

sincerest gratitude.

iii

Thanks also go to the Psychology Department Grad—
uate Office staff for preparation of the questionnaire
materials, and to the Instructional Media Center for their
technical assistance.

Finally, very special appreciation is expressed
to my wife Frances for her imaginative suggestions and
encouragement, and for the many things that help one, over

the long haul, to do this sort of thing.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES O O I O O O O O O O C O O O 0

LIST OF APPENDICES O O O O O O O O O C O O 0

Chapter
I. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . .
The Problem . . .-. . . . . . . . .
II. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE . . . . . .

Affiliation . . . . . . . . . . . .
Affiliation Under Stress and
Uncertainty . . . . . . . . . .
Affiliation and Birth Order . . .
Affiliation Motivation . . . . .
Arousal of Affiliation Motives
Conformity, Opinion Change, and
Affiliation . . . . . . . . .

Interpersonal Attraction, Expec-

tancy, and Need Affiliation .

Other Studies of Affiliation
Motivation . . . . . . . . .
The Problem . . . . . . . . . . .
Happiness . . . . . . . . . . . . .

III 0 METHOD 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0

Happiness . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Manipulation . . . . . . . . . .
The Film . . . . . . . . . . .
Measurement . . . . . . . .
The Mood Adjective Checklist .
Affiliation . . . . . . . . . . . .
Measurement . . . . . . . . . . .
The Sign Up Sheet . . . . . . .

The IF Scale . . . . . . . . .
Birth Order and Other Information .
Subjects . . .‘. . . . . . . . . .
Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . .

V

vii

ix

Page

16
26
31
32

35
36

39
41
42

46

46
46
47
48
49
51
52
52
55
59
60
61

Chapter

IV. HYPOTHESES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Major Hypotheses . . . . . . . . . . .
Secondary Hypotheses . . . . . . . . .

V. RESULTS 0 O O I O O O O I O O O O O O O 0

VI. DI

Reliability of the Measures . . . . . .

Comparison of Subsamples of Experimental

and Control Groups . . . . . . .
Initial Analysis of the Results . . . .
Sex Differences in Happiness and

Affiliation . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Participation Affiliation - Actual
0 Commitment to Participate . . . . . .
Relationships Between Happiness and

Affiliation . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Relation of Participation Affiliation

to Other Measures . . . . . . . . . .

MACL-H . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

IF Scale . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Birth Order, Happiness, and

Affiliation . . . . . . . . . . . . .

First-Born Vs. Only Children . . . .

Only and First-Born Vs. Later—Born .

Absolute Ordinal Position, Happiness,

and Affiliation . . . . . . . . . .

SCUSSION O O O O O O O O I O O O O O 0

Sex Differences . . . . . . . . . . . .
Happiness and Affiliation . . . . . . .
Sex Differences in Happiness . . . . .
Sex Differences in Affiliation . . . .
Sample, and Sex Differences in
Volunteering . . . . . . . . . . . .
The Relationship Between Happiness and
Affiliation . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Birth Order and Affiliation . . . . . .
Birth Order and Happiness . . . . . . .
Interaction of Birth Order and
Experimental Conditions . . . . . . .
Suggestions for Further Research . . .

BIBLIOGRAPHY O O O O O O O O O O O O O C O O O O

APPENDICES

vi

Page
64

64
65

67
67

68
69

72
75
79
81
81
84
85
85
86
89
92
94
95
98
100
102
103
105
106
106
107
111

118

Table

1.

10.

ll.

12.

13.

LIST OF TABLES

Page

Summary Outline of Experimental Affiliation

Studies I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 7
Summary Outline of Affiliation Studies

Reporting Correlational Findings . . . . . 12
Description of Experimental and Control

Groups I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 60
MACL-H and IF Scale Means . . . . . . . . . 69
Frequencies with Which the Studies were

Ranked as First, Second, and Third . . . . 71
Sex Differences in MACL-H and IF Scale

Means I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 72
Study Rankings of Males and Females . . . . 74
MACL-H and IF Scale Means of Subjects Who

Did and Did Not Sign Up . . . . . . . . . 76
Frequencies with Which Male and Female

Volunteers Ranked Group, Individual,

or Isolation Studies as First, Second,

and Third I I I I I _ I I I I I I ' I I I I I 78
Correlations Between the MACL-H and the

IF Scale I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 79
MACL-H Means of Males and Females Ranking

Either Group, Individual, or Isolation

Study as First on the Sign Up Sheet . . . 82
IF Scale Means of Males and Females Ranking

Either Group, Individual, or Isolation

Study as First on the Sign Up Sheet . . . 83
MACL-H and IF Scale Means of Only and

First-Born, and Later-Born . . . . . . . . 87

vii

Table Page

14. Comparison of MACL-H and IF Scale Means
of Experimental and Control Groups for
Subjects of Different Birth Orders . . . . 88

15. Comparisons of Experimental and Control
Groups on First Rankings of Sign Up
Sheet Studies for Subjects of Different
Birth Orders . . . . . . . . .‘. . . . . . 9O

viii

Appendix
A.
B.
C.
D.

E.

LIST OF APPENDICES

Face Sheet . . . . . . . . . . . . .~. .
Mood Adjective Checklist . . . . . . . .
The IF Scale . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The Sign Up Sheet . . . . . . . . . . . .

General Instructions to Experimenters for
Administration of the Measures . . . .

MACL-H and IF Scale Means of First-Born
and Only Children . . . . . . . . . . .

Frequencies with Which Only and First-
Born Subjects Ranked the Studies as
First, Second, or Third . . . . . . . .

Frequencies with Which the Studies were
Ranked as First by Only and First-Born,
and Later-Born Subjects . . . .7. . . .

MACL-H and IF Scale Means of Extended
Birth Order Categories . . . . . . . .

Frequencies with Which the Studies were

Ranked as First by Subjects of Extended
Birth Order Categories . . . . . . . .

ix

Page
118
119
121

129

131

135

136

137

138

139

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

That peOple wish to associate with one another is
a common enough observation. After all, gregariousness is
one of man's principal distinctive features. It is curious
then, that psychologists have paid so little attention to
this phenomenon. Only within the last ten years or so has
any real research interest been directed toward understand-
ing why people wish to be with others.

The pioneering work of Stanley Schachter (1959)
is primarily responsible for the current interest in study-
ing affiliation experimentally, and it has set the pattern
for most of the studies undertaken in the last decade.
Studies of individual differences in need or motivation
for affiliation have a somewhat longer history than exper-
imental studies, since Murray (1938) drew attention to
affiliation as an important human need. Systems of scoring
thematic apperception stories for need affiliation predate
Schachter's work by some seven years (Shipley & Veroff,
1952). Experimental research is more important to the

present study, however, because it deals more directly

with discovering the conditions and variables which affect
affiliation.

The principal finding in the line of research
initiated by Schachter is that peOple prefer to affiliate
with others when they are made anxious or fearful. Re—
searchers have offered a variety of theories to explain
this phenomenon. Schachter considered a number of possi-
bilities, but settled on two.

One hypothesis is that frightened or anxious indi-
viduals prefer to be with others in order to reduce their
fear or anxiety (Schachter, 1959). A second hypothesis
extends Festinger's theory of social comparison processes
(Festinger, 1954), and suggests that anxious individuals
need to be with others so that they can evaluate their
feelings by comparing them to those experienced by other
peOple.

Just as one compares himself to other people as a
means of establishing a framework and social reality
for his opinions, so one may use other people to eval-
uate his emotions and feelings. In a novel, emotion-
producing situation, unless the situation is completely
clear-cut the feelings one experiences or "should"
experience may not be easily interpretable, and it may
require some degree of social interaction and compar-
ison to appropriately label and identify a feeling
(Schachter, 1959, p. 26).

Other investigators have generally followed

Schachter's hypotheses, either accepting or rejecting them.

A few have proposed alternative views. Helmreich and

Collins (1967) recently suggested that affiliation under

 

stress is produced by a dependency motivation mechanism
rather than, or at least in addition to, social comparison
and direct anxiety reduction motives. On the other hand,
Miller and Zimbardo (1966) state that when peOple are
frightened, their self esteem is threatened, and as a
consequence they need the "approval, support and acceptance
of others . . . in order to raise self-esteem" (p. 482).
Neither of these alternative theories seem to have sup-
planted those proposed by Schachter.

Although Schachter himself toyed with a general
theory of affiliation based on the notion of drive states,
after finding that hungry subjects prefer to affiliate more
than satiated ones (Schachter, 1959, pp. 90-102), he did

not pursue it further with respect to affiliation.

The Problem

The intent of experimental research on affiliation
has been to determine under what conditions people prefer
to be with others. One might think of a number of condi-
tions which could have an effect on affiliative behavior.
Yet, affiliation has been studied almost exclusively under
one or another form of stress. That this is so fits readily
into the "consistent, disproportionate emphasis upon un—
pleasant feelings" to be found in psychology since the turn
of the century (Carlson, 1966). Nonetheless, as far as

research can tell us, it appears that people affiliate out

of fear, anxiety, and hunger.. This conclusion is intu-
itively unsatisfying. Surely, some positive emotions or
needs lead people to prefer the company of others. To
suggest one, pe0p1e might prefer being with others when
they are feeling happy.

Schachter himself pointed out that ". . . though
we have investigated only the effects of states of psycho-
logical disturbance on affiliative behavior, it would not
be too surprising eventually to discover that the affil-
iative tendency also increases with joy" (Schachter, 1959,
p. 102).

Although studies of joy or happiness are only too
rare in psychology, a recent review of studies of the
"correlates of avowed happiness" (Wilson, 1967) reported
that the "most impressive single finding" in the research
literature was the positive relation between happiness and
successful involvement with people. From a correlational
vieWpoint then, there seems to be consistent support for
the notion that gregariousness is linked with happiness.
The relationship is often interpreted either explicitly or
implicitly to mean that peOple are happy because they are
actively in contact with others. Since all of the relevant
studies cited by Wilson (1967) are correlational in nature,
they might as easily be interpreted conversely as indicating

that people tend to affiliate with others because they are

happy.

The present study proposes to investigate the last
proposition empirically, by manipulating the well-being of
individuals to make them happier, and studying this effect
on their preferences for being with others. Stated in the
form of a general hypothesis, the thesis which this study
examines is that people who are made to feel happy-will
have higher preferences for affiliation at that moment

than peOple who are not.

CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

Affiliation studies will be covered more exten-
sively than the literature on happiness, recently reviewed

by Wilson (1967).

Affiliation

There have been two main lines of inquiry concerned
with affiliation: those measuring affiliation motivation,
and those studying the conditions under which experimental
subjects choose or prefer affiliation. The latter will be
taken up first. A summary of experimental studies of
affiliation is presented in Table l, and affiliation
studies reporting correlational findings are summarized in
Table 2. Experimental and correlational approaches cor—
respond to the two principle lines of inquiry, and the
consequent divisions of the review, but some overlap is

reflected in the tables.1

 

1Table 1 includes both studies of conditions and
variables affecting affiliation and validation studies of
affiliation motivation; it also reports findings on birth
order, a correlational variable. Table 2 includes corre-
lational findings reported by experimental investigators
as well as correlates of affiliative motives.

6

mufimommo .sz oz .AMV mom

.mmonmnmmmum mdfluflmz mo numcmupm on» no mamom do

“anonlnmuma swap

.wcoam Ho mHmSDO Spas mqflaflm3 mo moaono

m>flpmwaflmmm mHoE GHOQIMHHmm

Q
.on
umeno rename

 

.H0H>mnmn m>HuwuHEfl Ho

 

 

0>Hp6flaflmmm ca mmoamumMMHc on defioso wpmflxcm 2 coma .mNNmaamm
.mymfixcm
as news: GOHDMHOmH Hmmmnm
mm =Hmcm= «Hm>ma mumflxam mo
mmmacnmmmu mamaaflmmm mm =Hmno= defloso hpmflxcm z voma .unommmmm
.cmumHmu wauomuflc coaumwaflmmm mawom defloso Hmlmw .mm
w w nofiuflmom Hmcflcuo musHoQO w defloso wpwflxcm m mmma .Hmugomcom
.pon Ho xamu on UmBOHHm Hmzumsz
.BOH =>H5Hp= GMQD m>HDMHHHmmm mamom moaoso Helmm .mm
once mm msoflxcm H: =>H5Hp= a mofloso mpmflxcm m mmma .Hmuzomnom
.H9mmmmnum
mmma mcflnumEOm How menu
ucmEHnmmxm mfimm How mcflbflmz mum mamom mowoco emlom .mm
=mum£uo= NH Hmpmwum GOHDMHHHmmm w GOHOQO mumflxcm m mmma .Hmuaomcom
. .BOH swap mamom moaoso mauma .mm
m>aumaaflmmm GHOE mm mumflxnm as a bmoflono wumflxcm m mmma .umpcomsom
cOHDMHHHmm¢ mdfluommmd mmHQMHHm> can mqofluwccov we mwflcsum
.o.m muasmmm mmndmmmz m>Huoz mm hpsum

 

 

mmwcsnm :OHDMHHflmmd Hmunmsflummxm mo mcflauso mumfiadmll.a manna

  

 

L. . Witt. 1...?

._:. .xwmw 0A(nmaoaam mm ma code
QWHHHmmm whoa “manganese sung
.awauooune emnum> nonpmnaflmmm

 

.uomumucw hbdflmuuwo w
2 O thHmHHEHw “hucHMDumocn QDHB
m » wauowufle emnum> consenaflmmm

.Hmmw QH =Hddwm=

mm :msu m>wumwaflmmm whoa
cmfinownfics “mm =©Hmumm mmma:
Ho twan0mcflc5 cmnv m>auma
Iaflmmw oHoE mm =stummm whoa:

.QOflDMHHHmmm

ou GOflDMHOmH cmuumm

long mm mumflxdw an “30H amnu

w m>HDMflHHmmm wHoE mm “new a:

.cwEu0mch5
o swap UmEH0mcH MOM memwz
M GOHDMHHHmmm “mmocmuGMMflc on

Rig

.Hmmcmuum umnu Unwflnm
mo monommnm ca HwBOH mmmuum

.cnonlhaumw How wpmflxqm
cwospwn muwgpo suflz wGHuHmB

.uoc UHU OOHOSO mo MDHwGODGH
pan .mumnxcm guns snuomnfle
Umfluw> moaoao cOHDMHHflmmm

wamom moaoso

mamom mofloco
w moaoao

oofloso

meadow defloco

canon moaoso
w woaono

wamom defloso
w wOHoso

Meow

Hmwm

Hmmm

mpwflxcm
w Hmmm

mem

=mmeDm=

wuwflxcm

hvmflxcm

MS

ME

ME

mmma 1mflnnmm

mesa .eumumo

moma .ucsm

HmmH 1OUHMQEHN
w mmOdem

Hmma
smflnnmm a eumnmw

mmma .HmmeM

omma .cmsmunmfluz

hmma .HmmmHM

 

.o.m measmmm

mmudmmwz

m>flpoz

mm

mesum

 

ewscflhcoonna wanes

 
 

 

 

.irl’
. ‘
(r14...
(,f.
.adapnwuom m>aamaaaH%m.ca mnamun> mmapdpm msoawauoam Ca noaammaoavummp
.mm cmEH0mda deep muaaanm G30 mmma .mmaxoosm
z w>aDMaaammm mHOE mm namuumocs wamom moaoao mo macamuumons m w mecam
.mcoam
mcauam3 Hm>o ampmma Ho mnmwm
MB w “ecoam mcaxuoz Hw>o nuon pan noaummaoaunmm mmma 1mnaaaoo
H3 2 1muwmm Hm>o pmuummmum Hmcmma w moaono “mom 2 w Soamufiamm
.mummm naHB
cusp msoum “momma cuas Ho mmma .mcaaaoo
z wqoam MHOB op wmoco mm mHoE coaummaoauumm Hmwm z w soamHEamm
.maoam mcamn ou umamoaoawmam
m Ho .pmmp wEMm mcaxma
z mnmgpo cmuummmum mmamfimm Uncapmmaoapnmm mem m: mmma tnmxowm
.coaumaaammm a ammumm
mamm magmaoaDMawH on “moaned
luam mo maanmaafiam Hw>o cwmoso
muaaMQOmHmm mo muaumaafiam Emmamw mamm mmma 1ocumnfiam
z “eucaaammm ou mmoco aam Dmofiam moaono w Hmmm m: w Hmaaaz
.cmnmacam
ma cmsu wmwum dawn um
=mnmnpo= ma Hmmnouam a “quEa
lawmxm cwcmaqam onwz =me£uo=
ma mawmum>ca “Meow Spas mmma 1moafiuom
z wapomuac cmanm> nOaDmaaawwm mamom woaono Mama 2 w ocumnaam
.o.m muaSmmm mousmmwz m>apoz mm mcsam

 

cmncaunoonla magma

10

'gl

 

 

.mmomw 0D mua>apamcwm

omma tumxamz

 

 

 

amsumwouwm do Dommmm on camp 9&9 coaumaaammm E a GOmcaxufl
wmma tmwonw> 3
.mm aonucoo menu “was “mama: was» any :oapmaaamwm a .mammm rcOmcaxpa
Nmma
.mm aonpaoo amen mama “mamas mama Baa coaumaaamwm z .mmoum> w mmamanm
monscmooum oauumaoaoom mca>0amfim mmacsam coaumpaam> .m
.ummcnn spas Noauom .mm
mapoonap coaum> coaDMaaammm mamom moaoco goods: 2 mmma .Hmunomcom
GuaquOHDmmdq momusoom G30
2 .m00dmummwap 0c cmfimncd mo mucamuuwoc: m voma 1GOmQEOEB
.mcwoc msoum
m>apcdam>m m0 sumcmuum m mGHQHOm coacamo G30
N sua3 cwaum> coaumaaammm ca Onondaga mo mucampuoonn m amma 1mmOacmm
coadamo £30
2 .mmocmumwmac on oamow moaono m0 macamuumodd m2 mmma .nouaafimm
.mpwaaammm 0p penummoum mamom moaono admsonw amsxmm mwma
mm DmOE “moonwnmwmac on w woaoao m0 mucamunmoas ms tumamm w Ecmum
.o.m muaSmmm mwudmmms m>auoz mm mesam

 

Umdcapdoolla magma

 

 

11

.cmmmmnoca mums cwunmauo wmma .Moa3cmco
=pmonap= a =amom= anon pamamaH mo nmwa coaumaaammm 2 a gunman
=.xomn
Icwwm 0>apamom= ma Umuommmm
Ins wads “mumwm >9 convene“ mmma 1daaxcmnm
w Umumu c033 cwmmmnoca mums mama Ede c0aumaaammm m a cammcmmom

.mzoapacdoo
amuusmc “06:5 peasamuds
“mamaxnm m0 mmqapmu mamm
on emumamu mam>auamom mean mama ems coapmaaammm m2 Ame amma .mqnwm

 

.o.m mpaswmm mwudmmmz m>aaoz mm mcsum

 

emscaucoouna wanes

 

maamoaao “sz 0c “Amy mmm “caoalumawa cmna m>aamaaamam maOE

.on

qaoaumaamm u Hmpao naaamm

 

amma .aaoam>

 

.maaamadaoa 0a Umamama mam>aammmn aafid mama ads 2 w mammm .GOmdaxa¢
.mm cmaamoom amaa mam: mmma
Hmsmas can maaqamamaa m ma Umaomflma mm mama 8&9 Z 1maoam> w mmaaa£m
Nmma
.maaHMadaoa 0a Umamama mam>aammmc mad: mama B<B E ~aaoam> w mmaaaam
.mmoaono maaoam
2 Ho mcanoa w ampao naaan aaamcoaamama on ama0a>mamn a2 mmma 1mcaawmz
2 .mmamama Saa3
l Zwm aoc “wmama aaa3 UGSOa aomaam ampao aaaan c0aamaa0aaama m2 mmma ~mmamz w aaoz
z aoaammaoaaumm as mesa .mmamz a mac:
.mamaxcm
Z amma a Hmpao aaaaa aanmcoaamama 0c mama 945 m2 wmma .Uamaqmmom
m mama aka. a: vmma .amnama
.UmaMamH mam>aa
O Immmc maamcdoaammsw aaoama mamm w mama omaa “mama Ham 2 mmma .mamcnoo
.o.m maadmmm mmasmmmz mm mpdam

 

 

monawcaa amnoaamamaaoo mcaaaoamm wmamdam GOHamaaaaa¢ a0 mdaaaso mHmEESmII.N manna

 

13

 

 

.doaam>aaofi aomoaaam a0 xmpna cm w made 9&9 0a maamccoaammsw mmma .m3mxaz w
Umamama mam>aaamoa mam nomoaaam a0 mHaMCQOaammsv “mama 9<9 as tvamcoooz ~mdamm
.mmama m>aaOE aaoa a0 masaxafi 0a Enawmfi mmma .m3mxa2 w
w monmwao>m 0a 30a 1somoaaam 0a UmaMamH mama as mama 9<9 a: .Uamcoooz .mcamm
.mmcaama aOaaomaaam no mpsaaaam w mama coaaomamada mama 9&9 as Nmma .mcamm
.mmcaama aoaammaaam aMCOmHma
lamaqa Go maaumaafiam mwsaaaam w mafia coaaomamaca mama 9<9 as any awma .mcamm
.maafiaoacoo aomaam 0a aomamana mmma
some a mag ummafima mam>aaamoa maaaaoacoo a ma»? mmmm as 69302 a Masaamam
mmma
.maaanacoo 0a UmaMama mam>aaam0a mama mama 949 E 1qm>mm9 w mmawoz
.maaanacoo aomaam 0a aomamaca
Sofia a mad: “maafiaoacoo a mafia coaaMamH on mama 9&9 a: wmma .GOmamEmm
.maaEHOacoo mmma
w madmso Goacaao 0a Umamama mam>aaamoa mafia mama 9<9 E twmcasm a Moapasm
.mmcmno
mpaaaaam Mo maaEHoadoo w mafia aaamcoaamama 0G mama 949 E mmma tmcamm
.mmmaoamma wads m>aammmc oa vmamama mam>aammmn maa wmma
lamasaoa “maaamasaoa w mafia amaoa aaamCOaaMama 0c aamamqa m0 awm9 E .xoa3pmao w nonmaa
maaSmmm mmadmmmz mm mpsam

 

Umsnaadoullm maam9

14

 

mmma

 

.mzonamama amooa a0 mm: 0a mmaMama mam>aaam0a aa&d mama 9&9 a2 .mdmmm w adamama
.mmomM mo omma
qoaaamoama amcafiaandm 0a pmaMama mam>aaam0a aa&c mama 9&9 2 .amxamz w SOmGHxa&
.mmamEma aoc asn .mmamE am&d an mmma
How mmmmmao ca mmso aa& 0a Umamama mmvmnm mmmaaom mama 9&9 as ..am am masommMoz
mmma .maamomamm
.acmEm>maaom oaampmom w aa&d coaaMamH 0c mama 9&9 a2 a maaaaa
.moaamaamaomamao maaamcomama so £0&d
w aa&d coaaomamada u£o&c w am&c doaamama maaaaa mama 9&9 2 mmma .Mmmammoaw
.masoam aamEm
ca coaamoac5E800 amaam ca mamaao Hm>o Umaaama
lam aoaaqoo a0 mmammp 0a Umamama mammam>ca am&d aamamca a0 amm9 a2 Nmma .mdaaxm
.mm EdaUmE no as :maa mHOE mama>mU
Umaommma mm aa&d 30a «mm aa&c,fidacmfi cmaa amnfimfi mmma .Uum3om
asoam acaaMa>mU 0a mmmcoamma amnum> maoE 30a w an asmamca mo amm9 a: w Naa3oxamm
coaam>amm
I90 amaoa>mama
“oaaamEOHOOm
.mmcmaomaxm 30a w am&c 0a Umamama “maoaamaoma
ma& m>aammmc “mommaomaxm aa& wmnaamumcmm w aa&: Ixm a0 maoadm>
0a pmamama aa& m>aaam0a “macaama oaaamEOHOOm m>aa Ina “coaaomam&
Immm: 0a pmaMama mammam>aa aa&d “mommammaxm ma& 2a m m>oa amaoom
as mm you mmmcaaecmaam oa emamamu mam>aaamom yuan “mama 949 a mama .amsamam
maadmmm mmasmmmz mm mpnam

 

mmscaacoouum magma

5
l

 

.maaaanmuammc amaoOm ma

 

cmammaam saoa “cmamamacs doaamaafia w doaamaaaaam moaoao z coma .mNNmaama
.mmmaam
Hmcca cmaa cmamama maoE mmasmmmfi amaao “coaa .oam coma .xoamB
Imaaoaaama w moaoao mcaaam3 aasmnoaamama maaaaa .mamom moaoso a w aamcm .aamcM
mmaamc
.Umamamaaoo Icoaammsq “omaa
a0: mmHSmmmE amaao “mmmaam amass madmmma “coaamaamaaama coma .xoamz
coaamaaoaaama mm magmaama mm a0: moaoao mcaaam3 «mamom moaoao a c aamcM .aamdm
.mmamE =mcaammo
IGOO: Hoa aoa asa =.mcaamm>malaamm= aoa aoacmaa modaama am>amm
maaoama aamm «mmama aoa aoaoacmaa amaama mm>aa Ino «maaoama
Iommoaa «30a awn cmaMama maaoama aamm w m>aa0mmoaa aamm «mama 9&9 z coma .coo3amam
.cmEo3 a0a>mama a0
MOM H0a>mnma aa& a0 maoaoacmua ammn maaoama aamm mmcaama “maaoama
“30a asn cmamamu mmHSmmmE aaoamn aamm w m>aaomnoaa aamm «mama 9&9 a: coma .coo3amcm
moma .moaeaoa
.mHSmmmE Emmamm mamm w doaamaaaaam noaaMama on mammm moaono z o ocamafiaa
.manmcsam Hmnao coca aa&c amamaa mocmaom
amaoom “mmamE coca m>aamaaaaam maoE mmamEma aamamca a0 amm9 a: coma .mcaaxm
.mmmaam mcaosoma ca comama Hmsaocm
a0 mocmmmaa a0 mmmcm>aa0maam w aa&c coaaMama 0c mama 9&9 2 coma .ammmam
maaSmmm mmasmmmz mm mosam

 

cmncaacoollm maam9

 

 

16

Affiliation Under Stress and
Uncertainty

 

 

Schachter (1959) induced "anxiety" in college stu-
dents by describing an experiment in which they were
supposed to participate. Some were told they would receive
very strong electrical shock, others only subliminal elec-
trical stimulation. Then they were told they would have
to wait a short time before the experiment would begin,
given a choice of waiting alone or with others, and asked
to indicate the "intensity" of their preference on a five
or six point scale.

Under these conditions, Schachter found that affil-
iative desires increased with anxiety. Subjects expressed
stronger preference to wait "together" with the other sub-
jects under high anxiety. He also found that anxious sub-
jects preferred to wait with subjects taking part in the
same experiment rather than with subjects waiting to talk
to advisors. According to Schachter, misery ". . . doesn't
love just any kind of company, it loves only miserable
company" (p. 24).

In a third experiment, Schachter failed to find
differences in the affiliative preferences of high and low
anxious subjects, but supported previous anxiety-affiliation
findings with subjects he identified as "truly" anxious.
Schachter also concluded that the opportunity to communi-

cate with others was not a necessary determinant of the

 

TT.\ TT TT.

17

anxious subject's desire to be with others, since it had
made no difference whether or not subjects could talk to
each other while waiting together.

Schachter eliminated all but two hypotheses which
might account for the observed relationship between anxiety
and affiliation. According to Schachter, anxious subjects
preferred to wait with others: (1) in order to directly
reduce their anxiety, or (2) to evaluate their own feelings
by way of social comparison with others, an extension of
Festinger's social comparison theory (Festinger, 1954).

Schachter (1959, pp. 104-122) extensively analyzed
a study by Wrightsman (1960), supporting both anxiety re—
duction and self evaluation hypotheses. Wrightsman deter-
mined that actually being with others while waiting for a
very traumatic experiment reduced anxiety more than waiting
alone, but only for first-born subjects. The "serendip—
itous" finding of birth order effects in Schachter‘s own
studies have stimulated a sufficiently large body of re-
search to require separate discussion later.

Gerard and Rabbie (1961) were unable to confirm
Schachter's anxiety-affiliation findings, because too few
subjects chose to be alone to allow any comparison of high
and low "fear" groups. ’Comparing subjects who chose to
wait together, however, they found the choice weaker for
subjects who were informed of the reactions of the other

subjects, supporting a social comparison hypothesis.

18

Gerard and Rabbie used the word fear rather than
anxiety to describe the emotion they manipulated. Although
Schachter was explicitly aware that his studies ". . . in—
volved only the manipulation of physical fear," he never-
theless continued to use the term anxiety. The importance
of the distinction was illustrated by Sarnoff and Zimbardo
(1961). As well as following Schachter's procedure for
"fear" induction via shock, they induced "oral anxiety" by
leading subjects to believe they would have to suck on
objects related to infantile nursing. As predicted by
these investigators, the results supported Schachter's with
respect to "fearful" subjects, but were opposite in regard
to oral "anxiety." While fearful subjects preferred to
wait with others, anxious subjects preferred to be alone.
The authors pointed out that social comparison is only one
kind of response to a vague emotional state.

Rapaport (1964) manipulated "oral" and "anal" anxi—
ety in a manner similar to Sarnoff and Zimbardo, using
subjects identified clinically as oral dependent (drug
addicts) and anal-obsessive characters. Oral individuals
tended to choose affiliation without regard to level or
type of anxiety aroused. Anal characters, on the other
hand, tended to isolate themselves under high levels of
anxiety, whether orally or anally aroused.

Hunt (1962) attempted to resolve the difference

between the Schachter and the Sarnoff and Zimbardo studies

 

19

as a special case covered by a postulate of Festinger’s
theory (1954), which says that a person will not evaluate
himself against someone seen as vastly different from him-
self. Hunt thought that anxious subjects in the Sarnoff
and Zimbardo study might not have believed others were
experiencing the same intensity of emotion as themselves
and would not choose to affiliate for that reason.‘ Hunt's
own results, however, turned out opposite of prediction.
Varying the information given subjects about how fearful
they were compared to others, Hunt found that subjects who
were informed that they were more fearful chose affiliation
significantly more than those with no information or infor-
mation that they were less afraid than others. Those in-
formed of being equally fearful as others had less desire
to affiliate than uninformed subjects.

Gerard (1963) felt that varying the level of anxiety
of subjects did not necessarily manipulate the level of
uncertainty, which is more relevant to social comparison
theory. Consequently, he varied the degree of emotional
uncertainty, as well as level of information about others.
He found that, under fear arousal, greater affiliation was
associated with greater uncertainty, as predicted by social
comparison theory. Opposite of prediction, however, was
the finding that information that others were similar to
the subjects had less effect on reducing affiliation under

uncertain than under certain conditions.

 

20

An experiment by Zimbardo and Formica (1963) repli-
cated some of Schachter's findings. Fearful subjects chose
to affiliate more than subjects who were not, even when
they could not communicate about the experiment while
waiting together. Furthermore, fearful subjects preferred
to wait with other subjects in the same emotional state
rather than with others in a "different" state, supporting
an emotional comparison hypothesis. Most striking, how-
ever, high fear condition subjects expecting to wait with
others who had already completed the frightening experiment
wanted to affiliate even less than low fear subjects. If
subjects already finished with a frightening experiment
can be assumed to be less fearful than beforehand, these
findings would seem to contradict Hunt's (1962), in which
fearful subjects preferred to be with others less anxious
than themselves. Rabbie (1963) reports that when given
information about how anxious other subjects were, almost
no one wanted to wait with a highly anxious person.

Rabbie's (1963) study is better noted for finding
that it does make a difference whether subjects could or
could not talk to each other if they chose to wait for a
threatening experiment together rather than alone. Higher
affiliative preference scores were found for a "talk" than
for a "no talk" condition. Rabbie also found that affilia-
tion varied with the uncertainty of subjects about which

one of them would receive painful shock. He felt that his

21

experiment provided support for the hypothesis that "un-
certainty about one's feelings“ contributes to affiliation
under fearful conditions, but raised the question of whether
comparability or compatibility governs affiliative choices
more.

A study by Miller and Zimbardo (1966) speaks directly
to the issue raised by Rabbie. In it, the subject threat—
ened with a chilling "blood chemistry" experiment was of-
fered choices of waiting alone, with two others said to be
similar to him in personality traits and interests but
waiting for a different experiment, or with two people
waiting like the subject for the same experiment but dif-
fering from him in personality and interests. Preference
for the same personality over Same "inferred" emotional
state contradicted previous findings by‘Schachter (1959)
as well as Zimbardo and Formica (1963). The hypothesis
that affiliative preferences of frightened subjects are
more a function of compatibility than comparability was
supported instead.

Kissel (1965), in an experiment akin to the earlier
Wrightsman (1960) study, found that the actual presence of
a friend reduced stress responses more than the presence of
a stranger. In this case "stress" was induced by failure
on a task. The results support an anxiety reduction hypo-
thesis and compatibility over a comparability hypothesis.

Kissel (1967) more recently replicated Schachter's

22

anxiety-affiliation findings with a sample of institution-
alized juvenile delinquents, but only for waiting choices.
Unlike Schachter (1959), Kissel failed to find differences
in the intensity of waiting preferences.

Becker (1967) gave volunteers a choice of taking a
"pain tolerance test" alone or with others. He compared
four different kinds of affiliative choice, finding affil-
iation.chosen more frequently by subjects when the other 4
person was described as someone undergoing the same treat-
ment, or a physiologist who would give physiological feed-
back, as Opposed to "others" who knew nothing about the
experiment, or who had already completed it. Affiliation
was also greater for females than for males under the first
two conditions. This study does not help to distinguish
compatibility from comparability hypotheses, and in fact
may be seen to offer support to yet another hypothesis.
Preference for taking the painful test with a physiologist
could easily be seen as motivated by dependency.

Helmreich and Collins (1967) have posited just such
a dependency motive for the affiliation of subjects under
stress, rather than social comparison or direct anxiety
reduction hypotheses. In two fear-evoking experiments,
subjects favored waiting or working in a leader-dominated
group rather than with peers. These findings are more
sharply at variance with previous studies: "Contrary to

most earlier studies of fear—induced affiliation, no

23

increase in preference for companionship over solitude was
found under high fear" (p. 81). To clarify these findings,
a second experiment contrasted a "work" with the usual
"wait" conditions, and group rather than the earlier indi—
vidual administration. This time subjects preferred not
to be alone whether they waited or worked. However, ". . .
desire for affiliation was clearly stronger among subjects
who had spent a considerable amount of time in groups prior
to the affiliation choice than it was among those who had
been alone before being offered a chance to affiliate" (p.
83). The Helmreich and Collins study suggests then, that
". . . prior social setting can have a strong effect on
the desire for gregariousness" (p. 83). Similar misgivings
had been earlier expressed by Miller and Zimbardo (1966)
who felt that a "set" for remaining in a group might have
explained why almost all their subjects chose to wait with
someone under any condition. On the other hand, group
versus individual administration was found unimportant for
self report measures of affiliation by Sherwood (1966).
Along with set affects created by group or indi-
vidual administration, unintended or uncontrolled sets may
also be created by the instructions used by researchers.
Those used by Helmreich and Collins (1967) for example, to
make choices of different waiting or working conditions

plausible to subjects, seem to go so far in getting the

24

subjects to choose one having the "best" effect on them-
selves that other motives, such as achievement, may have
been stirred up.

Another recent study raises yet another methodolog-
ical problem. Knapp, Knapp, and Weick (1966), using both
shock and painful heat to induce fear, examined affiliation
preferences under several conditions, and compared a large
number of affiliation measures. Among other things, the
authors stressed that "waiting" preference was-not as
reliable a measure as preference for participating in
"experiments" which vary in affiliation potential. Sim-
ilarly, in a non-stress experiment they found that ". . .
subjects have reasons for desiring to affiliate while par-
ticipating in an experiment, which are different from those
they have for desiring to affiliate while waiting for the
experiment to start" (p. 234). They observed that fear
did affect affiliation motivation, but may do so by reduc-
ing the saliency of need for social approval which they
found stronger in non-stress situations.

Social approval motives may operate under fear-
arousing conditions as well. Pallazza (1966) failed to
find any relationship between affiliation and imitation,
when subjects were given a choice of waiting alone or with
an accomplice under shock conditions, but reported that

subjects who scored high on-the Marlow-Crowne Social

25

Desirability Scale affiliated and imitated more than sub-
jects who scored low on this measure.

A number of investigators have tested Festinger's
(1954) social comparison theory of affiliation by varying
the cognitive uncertainty of subjects. Radloff (1961)
found that interest in joining a group to discuss an Opin—
ion varied with the uncertainty of subjects about the
adequacy of their own Opinion on the issue. Likewise,
Singer and Shockley (1965) reported that subjects had
stronger preferences for affiliating while waiting for the
second half of a task if they were uninformed about how
well they had done on the first half. The self-evaluation
hypothesis was not confirmed, however, when different
levels of confidence were induced in subjects about their
accuracy as self-evaluators (Thompson, 1964), or when the
ambiguity and complexity of issues to be discussed by sub-
jects were varied (Hamilton, 1967). Brehm and Behar (1966)
were unsuccessful in generating dissonance in their subjects
in the first place, when they varied information about
levels of "sexual arousal," but most of their subjects
preferred to affiliate anyway. Studies manipulating cog-
nitive uncertainty, rather than emotional responses to
stress, provide equivocal support at best for a social
comparison theory Of affiliation.

Schachter (1959) also studied affiliation under a

more benign condition than stress. He found that very

26

hungry subjects preferred to be together more than mod-
erately hungry or satiated subjects, supporting the notion
that affiliation might be a positive function of the drive
state of an individual. Schachter preferred, however, to
limit generalization from his research to the conclusion
that "affiliative tendencies increase with increasing

anxiety and increasing hunger" (p. 102).

Affiliation and Birth Order

 

Schachter (1959) observed that first-born and only
children were more anxious than later—born subjects.
Absolute ordinal position in the family had a strong rela-
tionship to the affiliative response of anxious subjects;
the later-born the subject the less likelihood she would
choose to affiliate. In fact, the relationship between
anxiety and affiliative tendency held for early-born sub-
jects and rarely at all for later-born individuals.

Wrightsman's (1960) study was cited by Schachter
as demonstrating that anxiety was reduced for first-born
subjects but not for later-born, as a simple consequence
of their actually being together with others while waiting
for a very frightening experiment. Schachter did not find
any birth order effects in his own hunger experiment. He
espoused a dependency hypothesis to account for the ob-
served relationship between birth order and affiliation.
First-born and only children are more dependent than later-

laorn children on other persons as "sources of approval,

  

DATE ISSUE W.0. N0. YEAR

 

 

 

 

 

Ll ' No. Pos.
J_—.————
W Total

I C/R SCH. 1 2 25 B

N0.PAGES PRICE 1 P08. AUTHOR NAME (LAST, FIRST, MI.)
'33 36 37 = P L 57 Format A
32 35 50 54 59 77 Format B
[—1/‘5lq I l I l JAIT‘LIEI’K IA! ; IC‘h LQITF-ld‘ 1% L I

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

b. Adv. Pav No. Adv. Pav Amt.
16 17 22 45 50 51 52
n l l 0 1 4 2 0 0 1 1 1 A L 1 l l a 4 - a

 

 

 

 

   
 

Micro and Abst.

   
  
  

PD00421

    

Publ. Abst. only

  
 
 

PD00421

 
 
 

PD00422

PD00422

 
   
 

PD00433

 
 
 

PD00434

Positive Copies to

   

Am.
110 aim/V

//7o—/()b 1‘ .1 ‘K
d [[4> l— 1’21»

   

 

 

27

support, help, and reference" (p. 82), and consequently
are more prone to turn to others when anxious or in doubt
than later-born-individuals.

Zimbardo and his co-workers confirmed Schachter's
ordinal position findings under both fear and "oral anxiety"
conditions (Sarnoff & Zimbardo, 1961), but later objected
to Schachter's use of a dependency hypothesis (Zimbardo &
Formica, 1963), and posited instead a social comparison
one with self esteem as the mediating variable. According
to Zimbardo and Formica, first-born children, having a more
exaggerated and unrealistic self ideal than later-born,
experience reduced self esteem under stress. "The conse—
quences Of low self-esteem would be feelings of inadequacy
and social inferiority and a consequent greater reliance
upon others for support as well as for sources of self—
evaluation" (p. 143).

The study conducted to test this hypothesis
(Zimbardo & Formica, 1963) failed to find any ordinal
position effects on affiliation in the first place. Only
a "trend" was found under fear arousal conditions for low
self esteem subjects to have stronger affiliative prefer-
ences than subjects with high self esteem. In another
attempt (Miller & Zimbardo, 1966), self esteem was manip-
ulated Via fictitious personality diagnoses, and subjects

were frightened as well. Almost none of the terrified

wanted to wait alone, so no birth order effects were

28

observed, nor any relationship between self esteem and
affiliation. Undaunted, the authors suggested that the
high levels of emotional arousal created uncertainty,
threatened self esteem and thus led subjects to prefer
being with others. This led to a new general hypothesis,
in place Of the more limited one about birth order, that
". . . one affiliates in order to raise self-esteem" (p.
482).

Two independent studies by Gerard (Gerard & Rabbie,
1961; Gerard, 1963) found sex differences in the birth.
order-affiliation relationship. Female first-born and only
children had higher affiliation scores than later-born,
but the reverse occurred for males. Wolf and Weiss (1965),
after initially negative findings for either sex, found a
sex difference in the Opposite direction. First-born males
preferred participation in a group rather than individual
or isolation studies more than other birth ranks. But this
did not hold for females. Their study differed from those
by Gerard in more than results, however; a different measure
of affiliation was used, and although Wolf and Weiss thought
that some anxiety may have been aroused in their male sub-
jects, conditions were clearly nowhere nearly as stressful
as in the earlier studies.

The difference between "waiting" and "participation"
measures was cited recently by Becker (1967) to explain a

failure to support Schachter's findings. In his study

29

females had stronger affiliative preferences than males
under two different conditions for taking a "pain tolerance
test," but no sex differences were found with respect to
ordinal position, nor was there a significant interaction
between birth order and affiliation. Confirming Becker's
suspicions, Helmreich and Collins (1967) failed to find

any birth order effects when male high school students were
Offered different affiliative choices while working under
stress, but replicated Schachter‘s ordinal position findings
when the subjects were to wait for a stress experiment.

Birth order effects have generally failed to appear
under conditions of cognitive uncertainty (Thompson, 1964;
Singer & Shockley, 1965; Hamilton, 1967). But Radloff
(1961), using level of interest in joining discussion
groups as an index of affiliation, reported that first-born
subjects were more strongly affected by varying evaluative
needs than later-born. In another kind of non-stress sit-
uation, Masling (1965) found no difference between first-
born and only children and later-born subjects in either
their preferences for rooming alone or with others, or in
their choice of group or individual athletic activities.

A few studies have looked specifically at birth
order and projective measures of need for affiliation.
Conners (1963) reported a "moderate" but significant rela-
tionship between need for affiliation and birth order.

However, a greater amount of affiliation fantasy was found

30

for second than for first and only children. This is
clearly opposite of what Schachter might have predicted.

On the other hand, a self-report measure, which is more
similar to Schachter's, indicated a weaker preference to
be with others for second than for first and only children.
Since the two measures were negatively correlated, Conners
reasoned that need affiliation scores ". . . measure some
aspect of early affiliative deprivation rather than posi-
tive experience of affiliative reward from others" (p. 416).
Examination of this and other issues related to projective
measures of affiliation motivation will be taken up later.

Dember (1964) reports precisely the opposite Of
Conners, using essentially the same thematic apperception
measure of need affiliation. Dember found that first-born
had significantly higher need affiliation scores than
later-born subjects. While the techniques of measurement
were substantially the same, the problems used to elicit
stories may have differed. Rosenfeld (1966) conducted five
studies using measures similar to Dember's. None of the
five studies confirmed the hypothesis that first-born have
higher need for affiliation than later-born.

In a recent review, Warren (1966) credited Schachter
with getting people interested again in birth order. He
suggested, however, that the ". . . variety of studies that
have appeared since Schachter's book provide confusing evi-

dence about the association between birth order and

 

31

affiliative behavior" (p. 38). Warren felt that the evi-
dence for the association held only for women and under
stress. Now privy to more studies, we can say that the
evidence is more confusing and less convincing. The major-
ity of studies reviewed failed to find birth order effects.
The birth order-affiliation relationship seems to hold for
both males and females, and more Often under stress, but
stress does not guarantee the appearance of the relation-
ship. Furthermore, the birth order effect seems to be
easier to find when "waiting" preferences are used to
assess affiliation rather than "participation" preferences,
although the latter tend to be more favorable to positive

findings for males.

Affiliation Motivation

 

Studies concerned with individual differences in
affiliative motivation form a second distinct line of re-
search on affiliation. These studies have in common that
they measure the magnitude of need or motivation for affil-
iation and make various comparisons of groups characterized
as high or low in the need to affiliate. Most of their
measures were based specifically on the thematic appercep-
tion method, growing out of need achievement studies which
used these projective measures (Atkinson, 1958). There are
other measures of need affiliation. The Edwards Personal

Preference Schedule, for example, includes a need

32

affiliation scale. With few exceptions, however, interest
in the need for affiliation has been too peripheral in
studies using such tests to warrant review here.

Arousal of Affiliation Motives.--Shipley and Veroff
(1952) are credited with develOping a scoring system for
need affiliation (nAff) using stories told to the Thematic
Apperception Test (TAT) and TAT-like pictures. This scoring
system measured ". . . predominantly that aspect of n

affiliation characterized by fear of rejection. . ." (p.

 

354). Shipley and Veroff experimentally aroused affiliation
need by giving members of a fraternity a sociometric test.
They found that the stories of the aroused subjects were
more related to affiliation than those of control subjects.
They also reported a negative correlation between socio-
metric popularity and need affiliation. In a second exper-
iment, freshmen who had been rejected by fraternities
showed more of the fear—of-rejection imagery than subjects
who had been accepted. ’

Shipley and Veroff knew they were looking only at
the negative side of affiliative needs, and expressed
awareness of more positive reasons why people might want
to associate with others. Subsequently, Atkinson, Heyns,
and Veroff (1954) develOped a method of scoring thematic
apperception stories for positive motivation for "social
acceptance," and found stories Of ". . . attempts to estab-

lish, maintain, or restore positive affective relationships

33

with other persons" (p. 409). Like negative stories, the
positive ones occurred more frequently in groups aroused

by a sociometric procedure than in controls. Popularity
was again found negatively correlated with need affilia-
tion, but this time with a positively oriented measure of
that need. High need affiliation subjects would seem to
be unpopular regardless of whether their need is positively
or negatively motivated.

Atkinson and Walker (1956) reported that high need
affiliation subjects were more sensitive to faces in a
subliminal perception experiment than a low need affilia-
tion group, providing evidence of a relation between mot—
ivation and perceptual selection of motive-relevant stimuli.
But a sociometric rating procedure expected to increase the
differences between the high and low need affiliation
groups in perceptual sensitivity to faces, consistent with
previous findings, failed to do so.

On the same track as Atkinson, Elizabeth French
(French & Chadwick, 1956; French, 1958) expanded Shipley
and Veroff‘s negatively toned definition of affiliation
motivation to include ". . . a desire to establish and/or
maintain warm and friendly interpersonal relations" (French
& Chadwick, 1956, p. 296). French was more explicit than
Atkinson in positing a two-factor View Of affiliation need.
She developed the Test of Insight, a projective measure

composed of single sentence descriptions of a person's

34

behavior which subjects must explain. The subject osten—
sibly projects affiliation and achievement needs into his
responses. This test yields positive and negative scores
as well as a total score for need affiliation. The measure
has-fair test-retest reliability, but an alternative form
provided by French does not appear to be really equivalent
(Himelstein & Kimbrough, 1960).

Using the Test of Insight, French and Chadwick
(1956) supported previous studies (Shipley & Veroff, 1952;
Atkinson et al., 1954). Increasing affiliative cues by a
sociometric procedure resulted in increased levels of both
positive (goal-oriented) and negative (threat-oriented)
affiliative needs. With respect to popularity, however,
the data supported only Shipley and Veroff. While popular-
ity was unrelated to total need affiliation, it was nega-
tively related to the number of negative need affiliation
responses.

Recently, Rosenfeld and Franklin (1966) pointed out
that detection of affiliation motives by thematic appercep-
tion measures had been documented only with male samples,
so they used a sociometric test to arouse affiliation
motives in females. Being rated by peers, and being re-
jected by peers (feedback of negative rating of herself)
both led to arousal of TAT-type need affiliation, but
social acceptance (positive feedback from the sociometric)

had no effect. The authors thought the latter procedure

35

had probably satisfied rather than aroused affiliative
needs. Because the rejection condition resulted in in-
creased positive but not negative categories of affiliative
fantasy, Rosenfeld and Franklin warned against making
literal inferences from TAT measures about differential
motivating states on the basis of manifest content.

An experiment by Byrne (1961a) suggests that anxiety
is evoked by the experimental arousal of affiliation m0-
tives. He reported that subjects high in need affiliation
rated themselves more anxious than low need affiliation
subjects in a situation (rating self and others while being
watched) designed to evoke affiliation motives. Anxiety
and need affiliation were unrelated in a neutral situation.

Conformity, Opinion Change, and Affiliation.--A
number of investigators have sought to relate conformity
and Opinion change to the need for affiliation, thinking
that individuals with a high affiliation need should be
more sensitive to group pressures than those with a low
need. All but one of these studies drew on the Asch-type
experiment, in which group pressures are exerted on the
subject's attitudinal or perceptual judgments. TAT-type
need affiliation measures were used in all but one study.

Hardy (1957) found no difference between high and
low need affiliation groups in either conformity to the
group or in attitude change. Samelson (1958) similarly

found no significant relation between need affiliation and

36

conformity, although affiliation and achievement needs
interacted to affect conformity. Recently, however, McGhee
and Teevan (1967) did find that subjects high in need
affiliation conformed more than low need affiliation sub-
jects by yielding to an erring majority in making perceptual
judgments. In a different kind of Opinion change exper-
iment, Burdick and Burnes (1958) likewise found that high
need affiliation subjects tended to change opinions to
conform to those of a liked experimenter more than low need
affiliation subjects. Sistrunk and McDavid (1965), using
the Edwards Personal Preference Schedule, found that a high
need affiliation group yielded to group pressure to make
erroneous judgments more than a low need affiliation group.
They also found a significant interaction between achieve-
ment and affiliation motives; each motive seemed to Operate
to suppress the effects of the other on conforming behavior.

There seems to be some support from these few
studies for the notion that people for whom affiliation
needs are important are more susceptible to group influence.
Many variables and conditions relevant tO this relationship
remain to be elucidated. For example conditions of social
support seem to be important (Hardy, 1957).

Interpersonal Attraction, Expectancy, and Need

Affiliation.--Byrne (1961b) reports that a stranger with

 

attitudes similar to the subject's was rated equally posi-

tively by both high and low need affiliation subjects.

37

Where the attitudes were dissimilar, however, the mythical
stranger received more negative interpersonal attraction
ratings from the high need affiliation subjects. It may
also be recalled that Miller and Zimbardo (1966) reported
that subjects preferred to wait for a threatening exper—
iment with others with similar personalities than with
others unlike themselves but in the same predicament.

Byrne (1962) later found that the influence of
similarity-dissimilarity Of a stranger on interpersonal
attraction was greatest for "medium" and least for low need
affiliation groups. The medium affiliation group ". . .
tended to react more positively to a stranger with similar
attitudes, more negatively to a stranger with dissimilar
attitudes, and were more apt to suggest that the latter
alter his views" (p. 175). Another experiment suggested
that medium need affiliation subjects respond this way
because of the ambivalence of their affiliation motives.
Byrne, McDonald, and Mikawa (1963) developed an Interper-
sonal Affect Scoring System for TAT stories to measure
approach and avoidance motives. The usual Atkinson-type
scoring was employed to distinguish need affiliation groups.
As the authors predicted, the stories of high need affilia-
tion subjects contained predominantly approach motives, low
need affiliation subjects told stories predominating in
avoidance motivation and medium need affiliation subjects

had a mixture of both approach and avoidance themes.

38

Subscribing to a two-factor view of affiliation
motives, Byrne (1962; Byrne et al., 1963) suggested that
differences in need affiliation reflected different expec—
tancies of interpersonal interactions based on past exper-
ience. Individuals who have had good experiences with
others will have developed approach motives to affiliative
cues. "Unsuccessful" interpersonal experiences, on the
other hand, result in expectancy of poor future relation-
ships, and avoidance of affiliation.

A recent study by Fishman (1966) looked more

 

directly at the expectancy question and supported Byrne's
theory. Fishman obtained both situational and generalized
measures of expectancy of affiliation, and divided need
affiliation scores into approach and avoidance. Results
supported the view that positive affiliation reflects both
affiliative need strength and high generalized affiliation
expectancy, while negative affiliation reflects both affil-
iation need and low generalized expectancy of affiliation.
Byrne's findings do not fit well with those of an
earlier study by Berkowitz and Howard (1959) using the Test
of Insight. Unlike Byrne (1961b), these investigators
found low need affiliation subjects more rejecting of a
deviate than either high or medium subjects, and medium
need affiliation subjects were the least responsive to a
deviating group member, in contrast to another Byrne study

(1962). Similarly, Exline (1962), using the same test as

39

Berkowitz and Howard and also concerned with communications
within groups, found need affiliation inversely related to
the degree of control over others attempted in the first
message written in the process of group problem solving.
Differences in measures and in the additional motives
related to group interdependence and control which operated
in the Berkowitz and Howard, and Exline studies, may ac—
count for the apparent contradictions to Byrne's conclu—
sions. But, then, these factors may need to be considered
in the theories advanced by Byrne and his associates (Byrne
et al., 1963).

Other Studies of Affiliation Motivation.--In one of
the earliest studies using the thematic apperception method,
Lansing and Heyns (1959) found need affiliation correlated
with frequency of use of the local telephone in a large
sample of telephone subscribers. Letter writing, visits,
and long-distance telephoning were less related or not
related at all.

Despite the fact that the thematic apperception
measurement of need affiliation grew out of need achievement
studies and the two are found cheek by jowl in Atkinson's
book (1958), there has been little attention to any pos-
sible relationship between the two. Groesbeck (1958) found
just that--very little relationship, but reported interac-
tions of affiliation and achievement need on personality

characteristics. Other interactions between affiliation

m

 

40

and achievement motives in their effects on conformity were
reported earlier (Samelson, 1958; Sistrunk & McDavid, 1965).
In a sample of adults in a small community, Littig and
Yeracaris (1963) were unable to find any relationship be—
tween need affiliation and level of academic achievement.
McKeachie and his colleagues (McKeachie, Lin, Milholland,

& Isaacson, 1966) thought that the grades of college stu-
dents high in need affiliation would be higher in classes
with many affiliative cues, such as friendliness and in—

terest of the instructor, than in classes with few affil—

 

iative cues. Results were consistent enough in their
studies to support this hypothesis, but only for males.
Exline (1960) found a sex difference in the other direction,
reporting that women gave more affiliative responses than
men on French's test. He also found that subjects in a
social science course gave more affiliative responses than
a cross section of students.

More important sex differences, relevant to the
measurement of need affiliation, were reported in a recent
study by Sherwood (1966). Projective measures of need
affiliation were found to be better predictors of affilia—
tive behavior than self reports for males. The opposite
tendency was found for females; self reports were found to
be the best predictors for women. Self reports of need
affiliation were correlated with affiliative behavior for

males who reported themselves as self—revealing, but not

41

for concealing males. Projective measures then, seem to
be the best to use with concealing males.

Fishman (1966) found ". . . self descriptive meas-
ures as strongly related to overt affiliative behavior as
was the n affiliation thematic apperception measure" (p.
162). Since Fishman used only females, his results are

basically in agreement with Sherwood's findings.

The Problem

 

Not one of the studies reviewed, under either line

 

of research, investigated affiliative behavior under cir-
cumstances designed to make subjects happy. Certainly,
most of the Schachter-type studies did their best to
frighten the subjects, and studies experimentally arousing
affiliative motives seem to elicit anxiety as well (Byrne,
1961a).

While the distinction between positively and nega-
tively motivated affiliation has been established (French
& Chadwick, 1956; Bryne et al., 1963; Fishman, 1966), less
is known about the positive conditions leading people to
affiliate than about the multitude of negative conditions
already well documented in the studies just reviewed. In
fact, it has yet to be established empirically that posi-
tive conditions do have any affect at all on affiliation.

The present study is designed to investigate this question.

 

42

Happiness

A parallel situation to the two major ways of
studying affiliation exists in the rather spare research
concerned with happiness and moods in general. Some in-
vestigators have been interested in generating such moods
as happiness experimentally and examining the consequences
on behavior. Others have concentrated on the differences
in happiness between individuals and how these differences
correlate with other variables. A few have also looked at

intra—individual differences, observing moods in the same

 

subjects over time.

The best representative of the first approach is
the work Of Vincent Nowlis (1965) and his colleagues. Most
of his work and the research of others working in the area
is summarized in Nowlis' review of research with his Mood
Adjective Checklist (Nowlis, 1965). As one might expect,

a great deal more interest has been shown in negative moods
like fear, anxiety and anger than in positive ones. Of
interest to the present study, however, is the fact that a
number of peOple have effectively generated the mood of
happiness or well-being in subjects by means of either
motion pictures (Axelrod, 1963; Nowlis & Green, 1964;
Miller, 1960), or tape-recorded narratives (Jacobs, Capek

& Meehan, 1961b). Most of these researchers have obtained
verbal reports of the mood states generated, in the form

of the Mood Adjective Checklist or similar measures.

43

Although some researchers in the area have looked at the
effects Of generated moods on other behavior, such as
social perception (Levinson, 1963), with one exception
happiness or well-being has not been one of the moods
studied. Miller (1960), in a study cited by Nowlis (1965),

showed subjects an excerpt from the film One Summer of

 

Happiness in order to study the effects of happy mood on

 

subjective estimates of the desirability and probability
Of future events. Unfortunately, Nowlis does not say what
those effects were. In any event, a search of the litera—
ture failed to reveal any experimental study of mood re-
motely concerned with affiliation. This is not the case
with correlational studies of the second type mentioned
above.

"Correlates of avowed happiness" (Wilson, 1967) are
many and varied. One of the earlier studies, by Watson
(1930), reported thirty-eight hypotheses resulting from
questionnaire findings; some examples of these are: "1.
intelligence has no relation to happiness;" and "2. failure
in love is a major cause of unhappiness." Only some of the
correlates found by Watson are relevant to the present
study; for example: "5. popularity matters; 7. success in
dealing with people is fundamental to happiness; 28. the
married are happier than the unmarried; 36. fears, sensi-
tiveness, shyness, are rightly regarded as major factors in

unhappiness" (Watson, 1930, pp. 108—109).

 

44

The positive relationship between happiness and
successful involvement with people of the kind seen in
Watson's study was found with regularity in many of the
studies reviewed by Wilson (1967). Wessman's (1957) dis-
sertation is cited by Wilson, for example, to the effect
that "liking one's community, being satisfied with one's
friends, making friendships easily, . . ." were associated
with happiness according to data from national public
opinion surveys.

A very recent survey of 600 adults by the National
Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago found
that the greater the extent of voluntary social participa—
tion, particularly in the number of times subjects got
together with friends, the greater the degree of happiness
these people reported (Phillips, 1967). In his own doc-
toral thesis, Wilson (1960) replicated findings from a
number of previous studies including those of Watson (1930)
and Wessman (1957) pertaining to good social relations.

There are enough studies of this kind now to offer
confidence in the relationship between happiness and social
contact. Wilson (1967) suggests, in fact, that "further
studies merely correlating happiness with numerous other
variables are not recommended." He recommends instead
"studies involving direct attempts to manipulate the well—

being of individuals. . . (p. 305).

 

45

An excellent example of the study of intra—indi—
vidual differences, and perhaps the best study of moods,
including happiness, is the work of Wessman and Ricks
(1966). In an intensive longitudinal study of eighteen
Harvard males, conducted at the Harvard Psychological
Clinic, they obtained daily reports of mood, which they
correlated with a variety of other measures, clinical Ob—
servations, and other data collected on the men over a
period of several years. Their findings are too extensive
and subtle to review here at any length, but a summary of
the "personality characteristics of the happy and unhappy“
offers some of the flavor and substance of their findings.

The happy men were optimistic and possessed of
self—esteem and confidence. They were successful and
satisfied in interpersonal relations. They showed ego—
strength and a gratifying sense of identity. There was
excellent organization and purpose in their lives,
together with the necessary mastery of themselves and
interpersonal situations to attain their goals.

On the other hand, the less happy men were more
pessimistic in their expectations and lower in self-
esteem and self—confidence. They were more unsuccessful
and dissatisfied in their interpersonal relationships,
feeling isolated, anxious, and guilty (Wessman & Ricks,
1966, p. 247).

The relationship between happiness and sociability

is evident even from this brief excerpt. The intensive
study of happiness in individual cases is consistent with

findings from survey studies. The gregarious are happy.

But, are the happy — gregarious?

 

CHAPTER III

METHOD

An overview of the design of the study will be of
value at this point. An experimental group watches a film
intended to generate a mood of happiness or well-being,
while a control group receives no particular manipulation
of mood state. Both groups are compared on questionnaire
measures (1) of mood, including happiness, (2) of gener-
alized preference for affiliation, and (3) of preference
for participating in fictitious "experiments" which vary

in affiliative potential.

Happiness

Development of methods of manipulating and measur—

ing happiness is described in the following section.

Manipulation
Although psychologists have been generally little

interested in devising ways of making people happy, "feel-
ings Of well-being" or happiness have successfully been
aroused experimentally through the use of tape—recorded
narrative (Jacobs, Capek & Meehan, 1961b). Jacobs and his
Co—workers played a tape—recorded dramatization which

46

 

47

"describes in a stream of consciousness technique, the
experience of a young man who is walking through the woods
on a beautiful spring day and enjoying nature" (p. 128).
Since a tape recording offering only auditory stimulation
was effective in generating a happy mood, it seemed likely
that the additional visual stimulation of motion pictures
would prove even more effective. Research by Nowlis and
his colleagues (Nowlis, 1965) has demonstrated that a vari-
ety of moods can indeed be effectively generated by motion

pictures and reliably measured.

 

After several months of research, previewing, and
not a little frustration, a film was selected for the
study. Since the subjects were to be young college stu-
dents, it seemed likely that a lively film about the cur-

rently 1n" sport of surfing would have broad appeal to
them, taking them into a world of fantasy with which they

could easily identify and would have the overall effect of
arousing feelings of happiness over and above those usually

felt while sitting in a classroom.

The Film.--The Surfers is a 24 minute, 16 mm, color

 

film, described by the distributor as follows:

An extraordinary color documentary telling the
complete story of surfers and surfing, from California
to Hawaii, from the summer sun to the freezing fog of
winter.* It shows how a surfer begins, why he surfs,
how, and where he finally ends . . . in the thirty foot
surf of Hawaii. The film has an original musical score
by Frank Hamilton, nationally known folk singer, and
one of "The Weavers," and is narrated by Humbert Allen,

48

founder and star of the Los Angeles Repertory Theatre
(Audio Film Center 1969-70 16 mm Sound Films, 1968,
p.-215).

While it seemed likely that a colorful, exciting,
and often beautiful film would generate a happy mood among
college student viewers, only an independent measure of
happiness could offer evidence that the film actually had

the desired effect. This necessitated the develOpment of

an instrument for measuring happiness.

Measurement

 

 

The simplest way Of finding out how a person feels
is to ask him. This raises the tacky problem of whether
or not his answer can be given any credence. One of the
principal reasons for doubt is the tendency for peOple to
give the response they think is most desirable or expected.
Nowlis (1965) reports, however, that his Mood Adjective
Checklist (MACL) does not suffer much from this social
desirability problem. His subjects filled out the MACL
under the usual instructions to respond according to the
way they felt "right now," under instructions asking how
they "typically" felt, and under instructions to fake.
Nowlis concluded that ". . . the social desirability status
of a word has very little, if any, effect on how it is
checked when the subject is asked to report how he feels at
the moment he reads each word. This independence is based,
in part, on the aforementioned fact that the individual in

reporting a momentary feeling can be expected to be less

 

49

involved with standards of social desirability than when
he reports more enduring personal phenomena" (p. 370).
Nowlis offers some assurance, then, that the MACL
can measure moods reasonably free from social desirability
effects. His checklist does not offer enough "happy" ad-
jectives, however, to be used for more than "an excellent
monitoring device" (Nowlis, 1965, p. 384). Happily,
Jacobs, Capek, and Meehan (1959a) have developed an exten-
ded adjective checklist based on the MACL, measuring happi-
ness, fear, anger, and depression. The measure proved
sensitive to all these moods when they were generated by
the taped narratives mentioned above (Jacobs et al., 1959b,
1961a, 1961b). Their checklist was modified to provide the
measure of happiness used in the present study.

The Mood Adjective Checklist.--The 75-item, revised

 

MACL consists of four randomly arranged lists of 14 adjec-
tives each, which measure the moods of happiness, depres-
sion, anger, and fear, and includes an additional 19 filler
adjectives.

The 14 items measuring "happiness" form the Mood
Adjective Checklist - Happiness (MACL-H), the measure of
happiness used in this study. These items are: expansive,
pleased, contented, lively, glad, cheerful, jolly, gay,
merry, happy, joyous, exultant, ecstatic, and elated.
Examples of adjectives for the other three moods are: (l)

depression: cheerless, downcast, miserable; (2) anger:

50

annoyed, irritated, infuriated; and (3) fear: concerned,
worried, terrified. The 19 filler adjectives were drawn
from Nowlis' list (Nowlis, 1965, pp. 373-374), representing
items from factors he identified as "concentration" (e.g.
concentrating, intent, attentive), "fatigue" (drowsy, dull,
tired), "social affection" (affectionate, kindly, warm-
hearted), "skepticism" (dubious, skeptical, suspicious).
With only a few slight variations, the instructions
for the MACL in the present study are those used by Nowlis
(1965, p. 356). They appear above the list of adjectives.
(See Appendix B) The instructions emphasize that the sub—

ject describe his feelings "at the moment" he reads each

 

word. To the right of each word are four alternatives the
subject is to circle: a double check (vv) indicating a
"definite" feeling; a single check (v) indicating a feeling
"slightly" applying; a question mark (?), when the subject
"cannot decide" whether or not the word applies to his
feelings at the moment; and a "no," to indicate that the
word "definitely" does not apply to his feelings at the
moment.

Whereas it takes subjects only five to ten minutes
to complete the MACL, scoring the 14 MACL-H items is time
consuming, when subjects circle their responses on the
checklist itself. A "key" consisting of a sheet of card—
board with holes cut out at the appropriate places served

as an aid in locating the 14 MACL-H items scattered

 

51

randomly among the other 61 items. Several systems of
scoring the MACL-H were considered during preliminary
development of the instrument.

A pilot study, conducted during the 1968 summer
term at Michigan State University, using 135 male and
female college students in an introductory psychology
course, evaluated the various measures developed for the
study proper. Several scoring systems for the MACL-H were
tried. The more complicated forms of scoring offered no
advantages over the simplest. Consequently, in the study
proper, an adjective on the MACL-H is scored as a "one"
when given either a double or a single check, and a "zero"
when the subject circles "?" or "no." An individual's
score on the MACL—H may range, then, from 0 to 14.

The MACL-H proved internally consistent in the
pilot study, with a Kuder-Richardson KR-20 coefficient of
.93. In addition, a MACL-H mean of 4.47 for the pilot
group suggested that the checklist offered enough ceiling
to reflect the increase in happiness expected if the film

succeeded in its purpose.

Affiliation

Since making people happy was expected to have an
effect on their level of affiliativeness, the development
of sensitive measures of affiliation was of particular

importance.

 

 

52

Measurement

 

Two measures of affiliation were used with the
particular population under study. One is a questionnaire
measuring a generalized preference for affiliation, and
the other is a "participation affiliation" measure of the
kind which grew out of Schachter's (1959) technique of
asking subjects whether they preferred to wait with others
or alone prior to taking part in an "experiment." It was
a logical step for later researchers simply to vary the
affiliative potential of the fictitious experiment the
subject was supposed to take part in, rather than asking
for waiting choices. A recent comparison Of these and a
number of other affiliation measures found that the affil-
iative preference for participation in a study was the most
reliable and the least affected by social desirability
(Knapp, Knapp & Weick, 1966). Consequently, a measure of
the participation type was developed for this study.

The Sign Up Sheet.--A mimeographed Sign Up Sheet,
ostensibly a genuine instrument for soliciting subjects
for research, was designed after a study by Wolf and Weiss
(1965) for use as the participation affiliation measure.
(See Appendix D)

The Sign Up Sheet Offers subjects an opportunity to
participate in three "pleasurable" experiments supposedly
part of "Pleasure Experience Project, #379." The three

"studies" vary in affiliative potential. Each study is

53

said to involve a film describing and illustrating "various
types of activities pleasurable to most people" but to be
followed by either: (1) "a group discussion, in groups of
three to six persons, regarding the effects of pleasure on
the senses" (group); (2) "separate, individual interviews
to test the effects of pleasure on the senses" (individual);
or (3) "measures of pleasure sensitivity in which the sub-
ject is isolated from all other sources of distraction,
including the experimenter" (isolation).

The emphasis on the experiments being pleasurable
was designed to handle the problem presented by the fact
that the Sign Up Sheet, for reasons discussed later, would
come at the very end of testing. While it is unlikely that
promises of an "enjoyable" experience as a subject would be
enough to generate a happy mood among control subjects, it
was hoped that keeping the instrument a "pleasurable" one
might maintain a happy mood generated by a film. It was
also h0ped in this way to equate the attractiveness of the
three studies so that they might vary primarily in their
affiliative potential.

The pilot study, conducted during summer term 1968,
served to answer two major questions about the Sign Up
Sheet: (1) should subjects be asked to rate the three
studies, or rank them; and (2) was there any "order effect"
owing to which study was presented first or last, and if

so, what order should be used in the main study.

54

Asking subjects to rank the three studies in order
of their preference for them proved more useful than having
subjects rate each study on a five point scale. Although
the rating method offered the advantages of a continuous
variable, and did seem to give a fair distribution of
scores, closer examination showed that subjects who had
actually signed up to participate in the studies tended to
use only the favorable end of the rating scales. If a
large percentage of subjects actually signed up, which was
likely, the ratings would have no discriminatory power.
Thus, in the final form, subjects are asked to rank the
three studies by writing in "the letter of each study (A,
B, or C) next to its appropriate rank." (See Appendix D)
The Sheet also informs them that they may participate in
all, two, one, or none of the studies, and asks them to
check one of these four alternatives.

Two orders of presentation of the studies, ABC
versus CBA, were examined in addition to the rating and
ranking forms of the Sign Up Sheet. Friedman analyses of
variance by ranks (Siegel, 1956) were helpful in examining
data from the ranking form, already selected for use.
Although the group study was preferred over individual or
isolation studies under either order, the preference was
most marked when the group study came first in order of
presentation (x: = 8.62, p<.05). It being preferable that

the three studies be ranked about equally under control

 

55

conditions, the reverse order: isolation, individual, and
group (xi = 1.05, p>.05) was selected for use in the main
study.

The Sign Up Sheet was not related to the MACL-H or
the other affiliation scale (to be discussed next) for at
least two reasons. First, the sample sizes were reduced
for the comparisons by virtue of the fact that four forms
of the Sheet had been tried. Secondly, the pilot study had
been conducted during the research-busy summer term when
most students had already completed their research partic-
ipation requirements for the course and had little interest
in any further studies. The next fall term promised more
interested subjects.

It was felt that in addition to the Sign Up Sheet,
a more generalized measure of affiliation, but one partic-
ularly attuned to the college students in the study popula—
tion, would be a valuable addition. To this end the IF
Scale was developed.

The IF Scale.--In its initial development, the IF

 

Scale was a 31—item multiple-choice test. Each item had
four alternatives, two Of which were affiliative and two

of which were not. In scoring, if either affiliative

answer were checked, the item was counted as one affiliative

response.

56

Instructions for taking the IF Scale were presented
at the beginning of the scale and contained two important
features which appeared in the first two sentences:

The following questions call upon your ability to
imagine yourself in a variety of situations and condi-
tions. Try to imagine yourself in each one in the way
it is described, and then choose one of the four
answers which most fits you at thI§_moment.

 

These two features were intended to involve the
subject with the questions as much as possible, while per-
mitting such involvement to be temporary or momentary
rather than requiring a statement of habitual attitudes.
No assumption was made about the responses reflecting only
temporary states. The instructions merely attempted to
facilitate subjects responding according to their prefer-
ences and attitudes of the moment.

Some of the items in the IF Scale were based on the
"waiting" type of affiliative preferences studied by
Schachter (1959) and others. For example, "If you were
waiting to see the dentist, would you prefer to wait: (a)
with other patients, (b) by yourself, (c) with a visiting
minister, (d) with a good book." Other items were based
upon Schachter's (1959) adaptation of Festinger's (1954)
theory of social comparison processes. The following item
is an example: "If you were not sure of your feelings
about doing something, would you: (a) recall how you felt
in similar situations, (b) check your feelings out with

someone else, (c) consider doing something else instead,

57

(d) find someone else to do it with." Still other items
were more specifically related to college students, such
as: "If you were elected to an honorary society, would
you: (a) attend meetings regularly, (b) earn the honor by
studying hard, (0) make light of it, (d) mention it casually
to a few people."

An attempt was made to keep the scale on the light
side to maintain a mood of well-being or at least a neutral
one. Items such as: "If you were feeling kind of low.

. ." were balanced by others like: "If you suddenly
seemed to feel very elated and happy without knowing why.
. . ." An effort was also made to make non-affiliative
alternatives to questions at least as attractive as affil-
iative ones. In the question above about feeling "very
elated and happy" for example, to "share your joy with
others" was an affiliative response, while a non-affiliative
one was to "just enjoy the feeling." Negatively stated
items were also included so that an affiliative response
would have to overcome any biases against giving negative
or aggressive answers. For instance: "If you had just
been told that a party to which you had been invited had
been cancelled, would you feel: (a) relaxed, (b) irri-
tated, (c) relieved, (d) frustrated."

The preceding examples give some of the flavor of
the 31—item scale and the way its items were written.

When this scale seemed to hold together well enough in

58

terms of the face validity of its items and some of the
other features discussed, it received its first use in the
summer, 1968 pilot study.

Not too surprisingly, this first form of the IF
Scale proved less reliable than desired, obtaining a Kuder-
Richardson KR-20 of .62. It also correlated only .15 with
happiness on the MACL-H in the pilot study. Although the
correlation was relatively low, it was in the expected
direction despite the limited range of scores for both
measures correlated. The MACL-H had a very skewed distri-
bution in the direction of low scores, while the IF Scale
scores clustered closely about the mean. Since the proposed
experimental manipulation of happiness could be expected
to spread out the distribution of MACL-H scores along with
an increase in the mean, some improvement in its correla—
tion with the IF Scale could be expected. But the IF Scale
needed improvement.

An item analysis of the scale eliminated items
which failed to correlate adequately with the rest of the
test. The best items (those with highest point-biserial
correlations with the whole scale) served as guides for
writing new items, expanding the IF Scale to 50 items.
Since some of the best items were sometimes the two affil-
iative alternatives to the same question, it was decided
that the new items would have only three alternatives, one

of which would be an affiliative response. This facilitated

 

59

development of the longer scale, as well as providing for
more efficient machine scoring than the previous form per-
mitted. These procedures were intended to increase the
internal consistency of the measure, and to allow for a
larger range of scores which would offer some advantage in
detecting correlations with other measures.

In its revised form then, the IF Scale is a 50-
item, multiple-choice test. (See Appendix C) Each item

has three alternative answers, one of which is scored as

 

an affiliative response. Instructions appear printed at
the beginning of the scale and are identical to those on
the 31-item scale except for allowing a choice of one of

three rather than one of four answers.

Birth Order and Other Information

In addition to measures of happiness and affilia-

tion, a Face Sheet, served as the cover sheet for the

 

stapled booklet made up of the MACL and IF Scale. The

Face Sheet asks for the usual information such as date,
student number, age, and sex, but also includes information
about the subject's family size, birth order, whether or
not the subject is a twin, and if either of his parents are
other than his natural ones. (See Appendix A) The Face
Sheet serves to classify subjects according to birth posi-
tion within their families, "only, lst, 2nd," and so on,

in order to examine birth order hypotheses suggested by

60

previous research. Only non—twins with natural parents
are typically used in birth order studies, thus the need

for identification of these items on the Face Sheet.

Subjects

Two groups of subjects, experimental and control,
were drawn from among students enrolled in two large lec-
ture sections of an introductory psychology course during

fall term, 1968, at Michigan State University. The compo-

 

sition of these two groups is described in Table 3, below.
All subjects were volunteers, and received "credit" for
participation in the study. Aside from prestige value
placed on earning such credit, a student's grade in the
course could also be positively affected. If a student's
grade fell between two grades, he would receive the higher
one if he had accumulated sufficient research credits.
This seems to serve as an effective motive for these stu—

dents to take part in research.

Table 3.-—Description of Experimental and Control Groups

 

 

 

Control Group Experimental Group
N 183 199
Male 84 57
Female 99 142
Age Range 17—25 17—23

Mean Age 18.39 18.42

 

61

Procedure

Control group subjects were obtained, and data
gathered, in eight recitation sections of about 20 to 25
students each, on the first day these sections met. Sub-
jects were greeted, informed about research credit for
research participation, and those who remained were admin-
istered the measures. The order of administration was as
follows: Face Sheet, MACL, IF Scale, and Sign Up Sheet.

The first three were bound as a booklet, into which a

 

machine—scored answer sheet for the IF Scale was stuffed
immediately preceding that scale. The Sign Up Sheet was
not bound to the rest, but was always distributed to each
subject underneath the packet of materials, so as to look
like a genuine sign up sheet only indirectly related, and
ostensibly separate from the current study.

The measures were administered to the control sub-
jects by four experimenters, two males and two females,
each of whom met two of the eight sections. All of the
experimenters followed detailed written instructions for
conducting the study (See Appendix E), and had a training
session to further assure agreement and uniformity of
administration.

Experimental subjects, drawn from a different lec-
ture section than the controls, participated in two large

groups, three days apart, during the last third of the

62

fall term. One group of 86 subjects took part early in
the evening. They were cautioned after the experiment not
to discuss it with anyone else. A second group was com—
posed Of 111 subjects, who agreed to participate during a
regular morning lecture section.

Difficulties in selecting and booking a suitable
film prevented study of experimental subjects early in the
term. Similarly, smaller groups would have been used but
for lack of adequate facilities in most classrooms for
showing motion pictures. Excellent conditions were found
in two large rooms, however, with theater style seating,
good acoustics, closed projection booths, and other features
satisfactory for film viewing.

The same experimenter handled both experimental
groups, as well as two of the control groups. Except for
the showing of the film, procedures were the same as for
control subjects. The same measures were given in the same
order, under the same instructions. (See Appendix E)
Before questionnaires were distributed to experimental
subjects, however, they received the following additional
instructions to "explain" the showing of the film:

The purpose of the research today is to standardize

a questionnaire. In doing so, we would like to give
everyone a standard experience before they begin this
study; a painless way we've found to do this is to
have everyone see a movie first. So, we are going to
show a film, and after the film we would like you to
fill out the questionnaire. We will have limited time

because Of the length of the film, so please do not
talk to each other after seeing the movie, but begin

63

to fill in the first questionnaire as soon as the film
is over. You may fill in the cover sheet of your
booklets now, but do not turn to the first question—
naire until after the movie. I will give you further
instructions at that time. If everyone has a booklet
and pencil, we will begin the film now.

As soon as every subject had received the materials,
the lights were extinguished and the film was started by
the projectionist, who was in both cases an experienced,
paid professional from the Instructional Media Center at

M.S.U. At the film's conclusion, the lights were turned

on and the standard instructions for completing the tests

 

were given. The entire procedure was completed in one hour

for both experimental groups.

CHAPTER IV

HYPOTHESES

Two kinds of hypotheses were formulated for study.
The first are propositions derived from the proposed exper-
imental manipulation, and the second kind test relevant

statements from previous research.

Major Hypotheses

The general thesis of the study may be stated in
terms of the following hypothesis: if the mood of indi-
viduals is manipulated so as to bring about a feeling of
well—being or happiness, they will have higher preferences
for affiliating with other persons at that moment than will
others whose mood is not systematically influenced to
produce happiness.

Operationally, the hypothesis actually contains two
statements, one pertaining to the assertion that happiness
can be successfully manipulated, and the second that in-
creasing the happiness of subjects will result in increased
affiliativeness. These may be stated in terms of the

Operations and measures of the study as follows:

64

 

65

I. Subjects who see the film are happier than
subjects who do not, and this is reflected by
higher MACL-H scores in the experimental group.

II. Experimental group subjects, having seen the
film, are more affiliative than control group
subjects, and this is reflected by:

A. Higher IF Scale scores for the exper—
imental group.

B. Greater preference among experimental
subjects for group rather than individual or
isolation studies.

C. A larger proportion in the experimental
group signing up for the group experiment
rather than individual or isolation studies.

 

Secondary Hypotheses

A review of the literature on happiness suggested
that a positive relationship exists between happiness and
sociability. To the extent that affiliative preferences
reflect a capacity for or tendency toward successful in-
volvement with people, the following hypothesis should be
valid:

III. Happiness is positively related to affiliative-
ness, and this is demonstrated by:

A. A positive correlation between the
MACL-H and the IF Scale for both groups.

B. Higher MACL-H scores for subjects who
select the group study as their first rank
preference than for subjects who prefer either
individual or isolation studies, regardless of
group studied.

Although the review of studies of affiliation under

stress raised some doubts about the relevance of birth

66

order, birth order hypotheses could be examined under the

happier conditions of the present study. Since Schachter

(1959) suggested that early-born subjects were more prone

to anxiety, to the extent that anxiety-proneness precludes

or inhibits happiness the following hypothesis should hold:

IV. Early—born subjects have lower MACL—H scores

than later—born, under both control and ex-
perimental conditions.

Early-born individuals were also said to be more
affiliative than later—born individuals, according to
Schachter, which leads to the following two hypotheses:

V. Early-born subjects have higher IF Scale scores
than later—born, under both experimental and
control conditions.

VI. Early-born subjects show greater preference
for the group than individual or isolation
studies on the Sign Up Sheet under experimental
and control conditions.

There is a more precise statement by Schachter
(1959) of the birth order—affiliation relationship, often
ignored by later studies, to the effect that affiliation
is positively related to the absolute ordinal position of
birth, i.e. the later-born a person is the less affiliative
he will be. In terms of the current study, the hypothesis
takes the following two forms:

VII. IF Scale scores occur in descending order of
magnitude from first—born to last—born subjects,
under either condition.

VIII. Preference for group over individual or isola-
tion studies on the Sign Up Sheet occurs in

descending order of magnitude from first—born
to last—born, under either condition.

CHAPTER V

RESULTS

After preliminary methodological considerations,
the results will be presented in the order in which they
were analyzed. First, comparisons were made between ex—

perimental and control groups on the various measures.

 

The data were then further analyzed separately by sex,
this distinction being maintained into the final analyses
of birth order. All statistical tests are two—tailed.
Where different sample sizes are reported, it will be

understood that some subjects did not complete all tests.

Reliability of the Measures

The reliability of both the MACL—H and the IF
Scale was determined separately for the experimental and
control groups. It will be recalled that the internal
consistency of the MACL—H had already been established as
high in the summer pilot study, with a Kuder-Richardson
KR-20 of .93. Similarly, the MACL—H was found reliable in
both the control and experimental groups in the present

study, with KR-20's of .86 and .90, respectively.

67

68

The original 31—item IF Scale had a KR-20 of .62
in the pilot study. A primary purpose of the extensive
item analysis, revision, and extension of the first form
of the IF Scale was to improve its internal consistency.
The effectiveness of these efforts is seen in the increased
reliability of the final 50-item IF Scale. The Kuder-
Richardson KR—20 coefficient was .71 in the control group,

and .78 in the experimental group.

Comparison of Subsamples of Experimental
and Control Groups

The experimental and control groups were composed
of several distinguishable subsamples. Control subjects,
for example, were tested by four different experimenters,
one of whom later handled the experimental groups. The
experimental subjects, on the other hand, participated in
one of two groups, one at night and one in the morning,
with the same experimenter.

Comparisons were made of MACL-H and of IF Scale
means, by way of analyses of variance, for the four control
groups run by different experimenters. In neither case did
a significant F test result. There being no differences in
either the MACL-H or IF Scale means for the four control
groups, these groups were combined for further comparisons.
In a similar manner, the two experimental groups were com-

pared, without significant differences appearing in the

 

69

means obtained by these two groups on either the MACL-H
(t = 0.897, p>.05) or the IF Scale (t = 1.09, p>.05). The
experimental groups were likewise combined for further

comparisons.

Initial Analysis of the Results

In Table 4 are the means and variances obtained by
the experimental and control groups on the MACL-H and the

IF Scale.

Table 4.--MACL-H and IF Scale Means

 

 

 

Experimental Control
Test Group Group t

N2 197 183

MACL-H S 19.4 14.5 2.63**
M 6.24 5.13
N2 189 177

IF SCALE S 41.31 34.97 3.74***
M 19.55 21.96

 

**Significant at the .01 level
***Significant at the .001 level
Supporting hypothesis I, the experimental group
obtained significantly higher MACL-H scores than control
subjects (t = 2.63, p<.01), evidence that the film gen-
erated a happy mood among experimental subjects. With
hypothesis I confirmed, it is possible to evaluate hypo-

thesis II that the happier people are, the more they will

7O

prefer to affiliate with others. The IF Scale means pre—
sented in Table 4 not only fail to support the hypothesis,
but directly contradict it. The experimental, or happy
group, actually has a significantly lower mean affiliation
score on the IF Scale (t = 3.74, p<.001), in direct Oppo—
sition to hypothesis IIA.

These results suggest that when peOple are made to
feel happy, they feel less like being with others than
usual. Firmer conclusions, however, depend on further
analyses of the data.

Information from the other affiliation measure was
disappointing. In Table 5 are the number of subjects in
each group who ranked the group, individual, or isolation
study as first, second, or third. Hypothesis IIB is not
confirmed by these data; the experimental and control
groups do not differ significantly (p>.05) from each other
in the way their members ranked the three studies as first,
second, or third.

Friedman two-way analyses of variance by ranks
(Siegel, 1956, pp. 166-172), performed on ranks assigned
to the three studies, indicate that the effort taken to
determine the best order for presenting the three studies
in the pilot study had been worthwhile since preferences
for the studies were about equally divided under the con—

2

trol condition (xr = 4.58, .05<p<.10). However, a different

order of study preferences was expected for the experimental

71

group. Although experimental subjects were happier than
controls, the group, individual, and isolation studies were
nevertheless ranked about the same by the experimental
group (x: = 1.85, p>.05). Consequently, the Sign Up Sheet
rankings support neither the happiness-affiliation hypo-
thesis nor the contradictory results of the IF Scale
findings.

Table 5.--Frequencies with Which the Studies were Ranked as
First, Second, and Third

 

 

 

 

 

 

Experimental Control 2
Group Group X
Study
Ranked #1
Group 46 58 0.038
Individual 42 53
Isolation 58 70
N 1 6 81
Study
Ranked #2
Group 41 42 1.058
Individual 70 92
Isolation 34 46
N 145 180
Study
Ranked #3
Group 58 80 0.798
Individual 33 35
Isolation 53 65

N 144 80

 

72

Sex Differences in Happiness and Affiliation

Striking sex differences are evident in the way
subjects reSponded on happiness and affiliation measures.
In Table 6 are the MACL-H and IF Scale means for both sexes

in each group.

Table 6.--Sex Differences in MACL-H and IF Scale Means

 

 

 

MACL-H IF SCALE
Experi- Experi-
mental Control t mental Control t
N2 57 84 53 80
Males S 15.53 12.82 36.72 35.66
M 5.58 4.14 2.21* 18.49 20.04 1.45
N2 140 99 136 97
Females S 20.79 14.58 42.77 29.15
M 6.51 5.97 0.99 19.97 23.55 4.56***
t 1.44 3.36*** 1.41 4.06***

 

*Significant at the .05 level

***Significant at the .001 level

Comparisons between experimental and control groups
indicate the film was effective in generating a happy mood
for male subjects (t = 2.21, p<.05), but did not make
females any happier than females who had not seen the movie
(t = 0.99, p>.05). But the film did have an effect on the
general affiliativeness of female subjects, while it made
no significant impression on male affiliative preferences:

IF Scale scores of experimental subjects dropped below

73

those of the control group for both males and females, but,
while the decrease in affiliation was not significant for
the males (t = 1.45, p>.05), it was highly significant for
female subjects (t = 4.56, p<.001). The film seems to have
made males happier and females less affiliative.

Table 6 makes it clear that sex differences were in
operation under control conditions. Female subjects were
both happier, according to their MACL-H scores (t = 3.36,
p<.001), and more affiliative on the IF Scale (t = 4.06,
p<.001) without seeing a film in the first place. These
sex differences were in the same direction in the exper-
imental condition, but were not statistically significant.

The initial results must be modified in the light
Of the findings for each sex. The film made male subjects
happier than they otherwise might have been, but not
females. Since the film did not significantly affect the
affiliative preferences of males, however, it cannot be
said that making males happier also makes them feel less
affiliative, as the initial analysis of results suggested.
Thus the main thesis is not contradicted by the data, but
neither do they support hypothesis II. Since experimental
female subjects were not made happier, their affiliation
data do not bear directly on the main thesis of the study.
However, since they do present the peculiar phenomenon of
apparent lessening in affiliativeness after viewing the
film, the IF Scale data of the female subjects demand dis-

cussion in the next chapter.

74

The frequencies with which males and females in
each group ranked the studies as first, second, or third
are presented in Table 7. Separate analyses of Sign Up
Sheet data by sex show no evidence of the measure's sensi-
tivity to affiliative preferences. In no case does a sig-
nificant Chi Square obtain, whether males are compared with
females in either group, or experimental and control groups

are compared for each sex separately.

Table 7.-—Study Rankings of Males and Females

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Experimental Group X2 Control Group X2
Male Female Male Female

Study
Ranked #1
Group 13 32 26 32
Individual 15 27 ns 21 32 ns
Isolation 14 43 36 .33
N 42 102 83 97

Study
Ranked #2
Group 12 29 13 30
Individual 16 53 ns 48 44 ns
Isolation 14 20 22 23
N 42 02 83 97

Study
Ranked #3
Group 17 41 44 35
Individual ll 22 ns 14 22 ns
Isolation 14 39 25 40

N 717 _102 83 '9—7

 

75

Participation Affiliation — Actual
Commitment to Participate

The Sign Up Sheet asked subjects to indicate whether
they wished to participate in one, two, all, or none of the
three studies, thus adding weight to the particular affil-
iative preferences they had indicated by ranking the three
studies. Large differences appeared between experimental
and control groups in the proportion of subjects who ac-
tually signed up for the studies. While 162 of the 183

control subjects, or eighty—nine percent, signed up for

 

at least one study, only 94 of the 199 experimental sub—
jects, or forty-seven percent, made a similar commitment,
and this difference is significant (x2 = 75.37, p<.001).
Female subjects in both groups were more likely to
sign up for at least one study than males, but sex differ—
ences in the proportions of volunteering to non—volunteering
subjects reached significance only in the experimental
group: 70 of the 142 females in the experimental group,
or forty—nine percent, signed up, compared to only 24 of
57, or forty-two percent of the males (X2 = 11.57, p<.001).
Of the 99 control group females, 89 volunteered, while 73
of 84 males did so, or ninety and eighty—seven percent,
respectively (X2 = 2.71, p<.10).
Since the two groups differed considerably in terms
of the proportion of subjects who signed up for the studies,

the question arose as to whether these differences may have

76

entered into and affected the comparisons that had been

made between experimental and control groups.

There being

marked sex differences in volunteering, the data were

examined for both sexes separately as well as combined.

Table 8 presents the MACL—H and IF Scale means for

subjects who signed up and those who did not.

significant differences in happiness or affiliativeness

between volunteers and non—volunteers, whether male or

female, or from control or experimental group.

There are no

Table 8.——MACL-H and IF Scale Means of Subjects Who Did and

Did Not Sign Up

 

 

 

Group Sex MACL—H t IF SCALE t
Signed Did Not Signed Did Not
Up Sign Up Up Sign Up
Experi— Male N 24 33 22 31
mental M 5.13 5.91 ns 19.27 17.94 ns
Female N 70 70 66 70
M 6.39 6.64 ns 20.27 19.69 ns
Both N 94 103 88 101
M 6.06 6.41 ns 20.02 19.15 ns
Control Male N 73 11 69 10
M 3.96 5.36 ns 20.48 19.00 ns
Female N 89 10 87 10
M 6.00 5.70 ns 23.47 24.20 ns
Both N 162 21 156 20
M 5.08 5.52 ns 22.15 21.60 ns

 

77

Signing up to participate in the study or studies
subjects had ranked suggests a greater commitment to the
ranking process itself than when subjects did not expect
to take part in them. It would seem to be particularly
important, then, that the effects of the group differences
in actual volunteering on rankings made by these subjects,
be evaluated. Unfortunately, a great many of the subjects
who did not sign up did so either by failing to make any

rankings, or failing to return the Sign Up Sheet at all.

 

Because of the consequent sparseness of Sign Up Sheet data
for these non-volunteering subjects, comparisons with vol-
unteers could not be made of the way the studies were
ranked. However, rankings could be studied when data for
non-volunteering subjects were removed, leaving presumably
"purer" rankings made by subjects who had actually signed
up.

Table 9 presents the frequencies with which male
and female volunteers selected the group, individual, or
isolation studies as ranks one, two, and three. Similar
to previous results with the Sign Up Sheet which included
non-volunteering subjects, none of the Chi Square compar-
isons between sexes or between experimental and control
groups are significant for first, second, or third rankings
when only volunteers are examined. Despite the considerable

differences that were observed between groups and sexes in

78

the proportion of non-volunteering subjects they contained,
there appears to have been no impact on any of the measures
as a consequence.

Table 9.--Frequencies with Which Male and Female Volunteers

Ranked Group, Individual, or Isolation Studies as
First, Second, and Third

 

 

 

 

 

 

Experimental Group Control Group
Rank Study
Male Female Both Male Female Both
#1 Group 10 18 28 21 28 49
Individual 5 21 26 20 28 48
Isolation _9 28 37 29 22 _§2
N 24 6'7' '9'I 71 87 158
#2 Group 4 17 21 12 26 38
Individual 12 33 45 40 39 79
Isolation _8 17 2g 22 22 41
N 24 '6‘7' 91 71 '67 1—58'
#3 Group 10 32 42 38 33 71
Individual 7 13 20 11 20 31
Isolation _Z 22. 2g 22 24 56
N 24 67 91 71 87 15's?

 

If hypothesis IIC is correct, experimental subjects
would be more prone than controls to volunteer to partic—
ipate in the group rather than in individual or isolation
studies. Since volunteers were defined as subjects signing
up for at least one study, first rank preferences in Table
9 reflect studies for which subjects actually volunteered.
There being no difference between experimental and control

volunteers in first rank preferences for the studies,

79

hypothesis IIC is not confirmed by these data: experimen-
tal subjects showed no greater tendency to sign up for the

group study than controls.

Relationships Between Happiness and Affiliation

The main thesis of the study suggests that happi-
ness and affiliation are positively related. Table 10
presents Pearson product-moment correlation coefficients
between MACL—H and IF Scale measures for male, female, and
total subjects under both control and experimental condi-

tions, separately and combined.

Table 10.—-Correlations Between the MACL—H and the IF Scale

 

 

 

Group Males Females Both Sexes
Control .10 .30** .27***
Experimental .03 .06 .06
Combined .04 .12 -

 

**Significant at the .01 level
***Significant at the .001 level
Two important features may be noted. First, from
the correlations for both sexes, it can be seen that the
relationship between the MACL—H and IF Scale is positive,
and significantly different from zero under control condi-

tions (r = .27; t = 3.67, p<.001), but drops to virtually

 

80

zero in the experimental group (r = .06, p>.05). Further-
more, the difference between the correlations obtained by

experimental and control groups is significant (Z = 1.99,

p<.05).

The second major feature observable in Table 10 is
the familiar difference between sexes. It appears to be
female subjects in the control group for whom the relation-
ship between happiness and affiliation holds most strongly
(r = .30; t = 3.06, p<.01). The correlation for males in

the control group does not differ from zero (r = .10; t =

 

1.35, p>.05), but the difference between the correlations
obtained by male and female subjects in the control group
is not significant (Z = 1.35, p>.05). Though the relation—
ship is significant for female control group subjects, the
correlation of .30 between the IF Scale and the MACL-H is
relatively low, only nine percent of the variance being
common to both measures for these subjects. As a conse—
quence, the drop, or difference, in correlation from con-
trol to experimental conditions which appears in Table 10
fails to reach significance when only the female subjects
are considered (Z = 1.84, p>.05).

Hypothesis IIIA receives only limited support,
then, happiness and affiliativeness being related only

for females, under control conditions.

81

Relation of Participation Affiliation
to Other Measures

There still remains to be understood the relation-
ship between MACL—H and IF Scale scores and the way subjects
ranked the Sign Up Sheet studies. To this end, analyses of
variance were performed on both MACL-H and IF Scale scores
to examine the differences between means obtained on these
tests by subjects who ranked either the group, the indi-
vidual, or the isolation study as their first choice on

the Sign Up Sheet. In view of sex differences already

 

evident from previous findings, these analyses were con-
ducted for each sex separately as well as with both sexes
combined, and for experimental and control groups sep-
arately, and combined. Table 11 presents the MACL-H means,
and Table 12 the IF Scale means of subjects with different
first rank preferences for the three studies, and the
results of the analyses of variance performed on these

me ans 0

MACL-H

Hypothesis IIIB, calling for a relationship between
happiness and participation affiliation, is not confirmed;
in Table 11, not a single F test for the nine analyses of
variance performed on MACL-H data is significant, regardless
of the subject's sex, or whether subjects viewed the film

or not. The results might be taken as further indication

82

that the Sign Up Sheet is an insensitive instrument. But
there is some indication, however, that the Sign Up Sheet
and the IF Scale both measure affiliation.

Table 11.—-MACL-H Means of Males and Females Ranking Either

Group, Individual, or Isolation Study as First
on the Sign Up Sheet

 

 

Group Sex Study Ranked As Number 1 F

 

Group Individual Isolation

 

 

Experimental Male N 13 15 14
M 5.23 5.60 4.78 0.13
Female N 31 26 43
M 7.52 6.15 6.44 0.71
Both N 45a 41 58
M 6.89 5.95 6.07 0.56
Control Male N 26 21 36
M 4.65 3.48 4.17 0.61
Female N 32 32 33
M 6.28 6.00 5.64 0.23
Both N 58 53 70
M 5.55 5.00 4.84 0.58
Combined Male N 39 36 50
M 4.85 4.36 4.34 0.22
Female N 63 58 76
M 6.89 6.07 6.09 0.76
Both N 103 94 128
M 6.14 5.41 5.39 1.06

 

aSlightly higher N's for "both“ sexes appearing in some
cases is due to inclusion of a few 85 who ranked some studies
and not others. Criteria for excluding 85 for analyses of
sexes separately are somewhat stricter; "odd" 85 were ex-
cluded because they appeared with different frequencies
for each sex.

83

Table 12.-—IF Scale Means of Males and Females Ranking
Either Group, Individual, or Isolation Study as
First on the Sign Up Sheet

 

 

Group Sex Study Ranked As Number 1 F

 

Group Individual Isolation

 

 

Experimental Male N2 12 13 14
S 34.57 50.86 25.48
M 21.25 19.77 17.64 1.17
Female N2 31 23 43
S 46.27 42.59 46.69
M 21.84 19.04 18.98 1.86
Both N2 44a 36 58
S 41.45 44.33 42.15
M 21.75 19.31 18.48 3.24*
Control Male N2 26 20 33
S 32.23 33.22 37.96
M 22.08 19.20 18.91 2.35
Female N2 31 31 33
S 35.61 17.78 35.18
M 23.71 22.58 24.06 0.64
Both N2 57 51 67
S 34.14 26.07 42.73
M 22.96 21.25 21.58 1.32
Combined Male N2 38 33 47
S 32.21 38.88 33.95
M 21.82 19.42 18.53 3.37*
Female N2 62 54 76
5 41.16 30.86 47.59
M 22.77 21.07 21.18 1.38
Both N2 101 87 125 l
S 37.31 34.13 44.53
M 22.44 20.45 20.14 4.14*

 

*Significant at the .05 level

Slightly higher N's for "both" sexes appearing in some
cases is due to inclusion of a few Ss who ranked some stu—
dies and not others.

84

IF Scale

According to the analyses of variance presented in
Table 12, the differences between IF Scale means are sig-
nificant under experimental conditions for total subjects
(F = 3.24, p<.05), and for male subjects overall (F = 3.37,
p<.05). Furthermore, for all subjects in the study there
are significant differences in the IF Scale affiliation
scores of people who selected different studies as their

first choice (F = 4.14, p<.05). The IF Scale means are

 

not significantly different when both sexes are combined
in the analysis of control group data, or when analyzed
separately for each sex in either the control or exper—
imental group. The IF Scale means for female subjects in
general do not differ significantly, unlike the results
for males with different first choices.

Where significant F tests were found the data were
further subjected to t-test comparisons of the means. The
results indicate that subjects who ranked the group study
as their first choice were generally more affiliative than
those who preferred the isolation study. This was the case ‘
for the experimental group taken as a whole (t = 2.53,
p<.05); for experimental and control males combined (t =
2.63, p<.01); and finally, for all subjects regardless of
sex or research group (t = 2.70, p<.01).

Subjects who preferred the individual study fell

between the two extremes. There was a consistent tendency,

 

85

however, for those prefering the group study to be more
affiliative than subjects partial to the individual study,
this trend reaching significance when all subjects are
considered together (t = 2.28, p<.05). Thus, there is
some evidence for the concurrent construct validity of the
two affiliation measures used in this study, and these
measures seem to be more reliably related for males than

for females.

Birth Order, Happiness, and Affiliation

A final series of analyses related birth order to
affiliation under control and experimental conditions,
again taking possible sex differences into consideration.
Several items from the Face Sheet provided information
about birth order position of subjects, and also identified
subjects who were either twins, adopted, or had step-

parents, so they could be eliminated from these comparisons.

First-Born Vs. Only Children

The relevance of the distinction between "first-
born" subjects, having siblings, and "only" children,
'without siblings was considered first. Comparisons of
lMACL—H and IF Scale means, and rankings of Sign Up Sheet
studies (see Appendices F and G, respectively), show no
difference between only-born and first-born in happiness
or affiliation, permitting combination of the two kinds

of first-born for further comparisons.

 

86

Only and First—Born Vs. Later—Born

 

Only and first—born subjects were compared next
with later-born, subjects from all other birth order posi—
tions, beginning with second—born children and ranging up
to twelfth child in the present sample. Table 13 presents
the comparisons between only and first—born and later-born
subjects on MACL—H and IF Scale means; the number of sub-
jects ranking group, individual, or isolation studies as
their first preference on the Sign Up Sheet appears in

Appendix H. Comparisons were made for males and females

 

separately and combined, under experimental and control
conditions separately, and for all subjects combined. No
significant differences in happiness appear between the
MACL—H means of only and first—born and later—born subjects
for any of the comparisons, thus failing to support hypo—
thesis IV. Similarly, hypothesis VI is not confirmed by
these data; birth order is not related to preferences for
the three studies (see Appendix H). Table 13 does reflect
a difference in IF Scale affiliativeness, however, between
only and first-born and later-born females, the former
being significantly more affiliative than the latter (t =
2.02, p<.05). This difference between birth orders does
not hold for males, or for males and females combined under
experimental, control, or both conditions combined. If
there is a difference in affiliativeness between only and
first—born children and those born later, as hypothesis V

contends, it holds only for females.

 

 

 

 

87

Table 13.—-MACL-H and IF Scale Means of Only and First-
Born, and Later-Born

 

 

 

 

MACL-H IF Scale
Subjects t t
Birth Order Birth Order
Only & Only &
First Later First Later
Males N 56 77 53 73
M 4.89 4.62 ns 19.68 19.04 ns
Females N 86 139 84 135
M 6.37 6.09 ns 22.54 20.79 2.02*
Controls N 71 99 68 96
M 5.25 4.86 ns 22.43 21.53 ns
Experimentals N 71 117 69 112
M 6.32 6.16 ns 20.45 19.01 ns
Combined N 142 216 137 208
M 5.79 5.56 ns 21.43 20.17 ns

 

*Significant at the .05 level

The birth order comparisons made thus far do not
specifically assess differential effects which the manip—
ulation of happiness may have had on subjects of different
birth positions. Table 14 presents comparisons of MACL-H
and IF Scale means of the various groups.

In Table 14, males of both birth orders have higher
MACL—H scores under experimental than under control condi—
tions, but the difference reaches significance only for
only and first—born males (t = 2.66, p<.01). When taken

over both sexes, however, it is the later—born subjects

88

Hm>ma no. man pm pamoHMHcmHm4.
Hm>ma mo. may pm ucmoHMflamHm.

 

 

 

 

 

.«wm.m mm.am Ho.aa «.me.m mm.mm ms.mH ma mm.ma mm.sa 2
mm NHH am am m4 mm 2 umumq
ma ms.mm m¢.om .4mm.m sm.vm mo.am ma sa.ma om.mH z umuflm mqaom
mm mm mm we om mm 2 a memo mH
.4m.m om.e mH.m ma mm.m mm.m ma mm.v oa.m 2
ma baa mm am he om z umnmq
ma mm.m mm.m ma m4.m m~.m .4mm.m ms.m m¢.m z umnflm
as as am >4 mm em 2 a maze mince:
Honucoo HopcmE Honpcoo ngcma Houpcou Hapmmfi
Iflnmmxm IHHmmxm Iflnmmxm HOUHO
p p p spasm umoe
Umaflnfioo mmamfimm mmamz

 

 

nympho nunflm quHmMMHQ mo muomflnsm How

masono Houucoo tam Hmucmfiflummxm Mo mcmwz mamom mH tam mlqomz mo cowanmmfiooll.va magma

89

and not the only and first-born who reach significantly
higher levels of happiness after seeing the film than
comparable controls (t = 2.34, p<.05). No differences in
happiness scores are observed between conditions for
females of either birth order.

Females have significantly lower IF Scale scores
after seeing the movie than in the absence of the film
whether they are only and first-born (t = 2.58, p<.01) or
later-born subjects (t = 3.43, p<.01). No difference is
observed for males of either birth order.. When male sub—
jects are considered along with females, subjects of both
birth orders appear less affiliative under experimental
conditions, but the difference reaches significance only
for the later-born subjects (t = 2.94, p<.01).

In Table 15 are comparisons of first rankings made
by experimental and control groups for subjects of different
birth orders. As in previous comparisons of Sign Up Sheet
rankings, none of the Chi Squares are significant for

either birth order.

Absolute Ordinal Position, Happiness,
and Affiliation

 

Comparisons based upon the only and first—born
versus later—born dichotomy do not take into account pos-
sible differences among individuals making up the later-
born group. Since Schachter (1959) reported in fact, that

it was "absolute ordinal position" which was related to

9O

 

 

 

 

 

mm mm mm mm. .ww .MM 2
mm vm om mm ma w coaumaomH
ma mm Hm ma ha «a ma NH w Hm5©H>HUGH
om mm «H mm ma n mnouw Hmpmq
hm mm mm mm Hm MM 2
mm ma Ha va ma m coapmaomH
ms ma om ms NH NH mm m m HMSUH>HUQH umuflm
em as me a a m macho a Sago
Houucou Hmucmfi Houpsou amusma Houucou Hapcma
Iflummxm Iflummxm Iflummxm
Hmtuo
Nx Umqwnfiov Nx mmamfimm mx mmamz >©5pm nunflm

 

 

mumwuo auuflm uqmumMMHo mo whomhnsm “om mmflcspm pmmam mp
swam mo mmsflxcmm umuflm so masono Honpsoo tam Hmpnmfiwummxm mo mGOmHHmmEOUII.mH magma

91

the affiliativeness of his anxious female subjects, the
present data were subjected to a final analysis for the
following birth positions: only or first, second, third,
and fourth or later. Analyses of variance of MACL-H, and
IF Scale means for the extended birth order categories,
and Chi Square comparisons of their first rank study pref-
erences (Appendices I and J, respectively) are uniformly
insignificant. Absolute ordinal position of birth is un-

related to happiness or to either measure of affiliation

 

for either sex under the conditions of this study. Hypo-
thesis VII and VIII are not confirmed, nor does hypotheses

IV receive any support from these latter data.

 

 

 

 

CHAPTER VI

DISCUSSION

An initial analysis of the data found evidence in
direct contradiction to the principal hypothesis that hap-

piness should increase affiliativeness. While it appeared

 

that subjects could be made happier by showing them a film,

thus sustaining Hypothesis I, the procedure lowered affil—

 

iativeness on the IF Scale rather than increasing it as
Hypothesis IIA required. Data from the Sign Up Sheet

failed to support Hypotheses IIB or IIC: experimental

 

subjects did not differ from controls in relative prefer-
ences for group over individual or isolation studies, when
either rankings or number of subjects actually signing up
were considered. But this apparent contradiction of the
major thesis did not hold up when the data were examined
for each sex separately. Only male subjects whre made
happier by the film. On the other hand, females became
less affiliative after seeing the film, while affiliation
in males was essentially unaffected.

Only males had been made happy by the film; only

they met the condition stipulated in Hypothesis I. Thus,

 

only affiliation data for male subjects apply to

92

93

Hypothesis II. Experimental group males did not differ

 

from control males, however, on the IF Scale, or in their
preferences for the studies, whether these preferences were
measured by rankings or actual volunteering; the data for

males fail to confirm Hypotheses IIA, IIB, and IIC, respec—

 

tively. The thesis that people will become more affiliative
as they become happier receives no support in this study.
The secondary hypotheses fair little better than

the main proposition, and again highlight sex differences

 

in the study. Although a positive relationship was found
between IF Scale affiliativeness and MACL-H happiness,
confirming Hypothesis IIIA for the control subjects at
least, females rather than males seem to account for the
finding. This was not the case when "participation affil-
iation" was considered, since the relationship between the
MACL-H and first rank preferences for the studies, called

for by Hypothesis IIIB, failed to materialize for either

 

sex.
When birth order analyses of the data were made,
whether birth order was considered in terms of early-born

versus later—born subjects (Hypotheses IV, V, and VI), or

 

in terms of the absolute ordinal position of birth (Hypo-

theses VII and VIII), birth order was found to be unrelated

 

to happiness scores, affiliation on the IF Scale, and Sign
Up Sheet rankings. Female subjects again provided the

single exception: early-born females were more affiliative

 

 

94

than the later-born on the IF Scale, providing at least

partial support for Hypothesis V.

 

Sex Differences

As we have seen, female subjects differed from
males not only because they became less rather than more
affiliative when shown the film, but also because the
secondary hypotheses seem to hold only for female subjects.

Sex differences stood out in other ways as well. A summary

 

of these differences may be useful at this point.

Females were happier and more affiliative than
males under control conditions, and under those conditions
happiness was positively related to affiliation for females.
The film essentially had the effect of reducing these dif-
ferences to insignificance. Neither of the conditions of
the study contributed to any relationship between birth
order and affiliation. Early-born females in the study
proved to be more affiliative than later-born, while the
birth order variable seemed irrelevant to affiliativeness
in male subjects. On the other hand, the film increased
MACL-H scores of early—born, but not later-born males,
while having no effect on the happiness of females regard-
less of birth order.

Although the Sign Up Sheet did not prove useful in
detecting affiliative changes with happiness, it did reflect

some differences in the way the two sexes responded to it.

 

 

 

 

95

The measure seemed to be valid for males and not for females
when it was related to the IF Scale. On the other hand,
more experimental group females actually signed up to par-
ticipate in at least one of the studies. 80 females seem

to have been more prone to volunteer than males.

Happiness and Affiliation

Clearly the findings do not support the major hypo-
thesis of the study. Making people happy did not result
in their feeling more affiliative. There is even the pos-
sibility that the reverse may occur.

Few of the theories of affiliation advanced in the
research literature have direct bearing on the present
findings, since most were specific to affiliation under
stress (Schachter, 1959; Miller & Zimbardo, 1966; Helmreich
& Collins, 1967). The social comparison theory advocated
by Schachter (1959), however, would suggest that the feel-
ings and emotions generated by the experimental procedure
were not powerful or unclear enough to activate a need to
compare them with the feelings experienced by other people.
A similar explanation might also be offered by Schachter's
(1959) drive theory vieWpoint to the effect that the emotion
of happiness aroused by the film had not been strong enough
to function as a drive.

These views would suggest then that the film failed

to make the subjects more affiliative because it had not

 

 

 

 

 

96

made them happy enough. Indeed it succeeded only in making
male subjects happier. However, if the film did not in-
crease the happiness of females, it clearly had a negative
effect on their affiliativeness.

Looking first at the differential effect of the
film in generating a mood of happiness in the two sexes,
we find that similar findings have been reported in a very

comparable situation. Nowlis and Green (1964) found a

 

Harold Lloyd comedy, The Freshman, effective with male

 

subjects in producing changes in mood, including elation.
Axelrod (1963), using the same film and the same measure
of mood, found females relatively unaffected. It takes
something other than a film on surfing or a comedy to make
girls happy, it seems. But why should a film on surfing
that fails to affect male affiliativeness make female sub-
jects less affiliative? The most straightforward response

would be that The Surfers had a direct impact on affiliative

 

inclinations in a direction favoring isolation.

One feature of surfing is that it is typically a
solitary activity; there is usually only one person on each
surfboard. True, the film showed many surfers, as well as
people watching on the beach, but the viewer, identifying
himself as a single surfer may well have experienced a
pleasurable feeling of isolation, struggling alone to ride
a wave successfully to shore. But then most of the/gurfers

were males in the film. While this might account for males

97

enjoying the film more than the girls, it also suggests
that, if viewing surfing has a "pull" toward isolation,

it should have affected the males more than the females.

The opposite was more the case, even though the males did
tend to lower IF Scale scores under experimental conditions.
The explanation might account for the failure to confirm
the hypothesis with males, but it is less satisfying in
explaining why females were least affiliative.

A different explanation can be offered for the

 

negative findings with males and the reduced affiliativeness
of the female subjects. The film, rather than generating
isolative cues, may have generated sufficient affiliative
cues to satisfy the needs of these subjects. This argument
was proposed recently by Rosenfeld and Franklin (1966), who
found that giving "positive feedback" on a sociometric test
to female subjects failed to produce increased need affil-
iation, although negative feedback had been effective in
doing so. According to the authors, positive feedback
simply satisfied the affiliative needs of their subjects
so there was none to be seen in their fantasy projections.
If positive feedback can be viewed as a way of
making subjects happy, Rosenfeld and Franklin's results are
quite similar to the present findings. Their explanation
for the results does not fit the present study as well as
it does their own. For reasons already advanced, the film

itself does not seem very likely to have generated an

98

abundance of affiliative cues. Furthermore, having one's
needs satisfied should also lead to increased happiness
(Wilson, 1967, p. 302), but this was quite the reverse of
what occurred. It was the males, not the females, who
became happier when they saw the film, although it was
female affiliativeness which declined.

Neither an explanation based on increased isolative
cues, nor one positing satisfaction of affiliative needs by

the experimental procedure is satisfying. What seems to

 

make any single factor explanation of the results implaus-
ible are the differences between the male and female sub-
jects in the way they responded to the conditions and

measures 0

Sex Differences in Happiness

It is everywhere evident that the differences in
the results for the two sexes were not due solely to the
differential effectiveness of the film. The male and
female subjects differed even more markedly in the control
group, the girls being happier than boys.

This finding has some intuitive appeal, but it is
by no means consistent with the literature. In developing
their version of the MACL, Jacobs and his co-workers
(Jacobs et al., 1959a) found that males and females rated
the four categories of adjectives very similarly on a 100-

point scale, obtaining a positive rank correlation of .90

99

for the happiness items. Although males and females agreed
how "happy" the adjectives were, this did not indicate how
they would use them in describing their.own moods. The
investigators did not report comparisons between sexes in
their later work with the MACL (Jacobs et al., 1959b,
1961a, 1961b). Furthermore, their conclusion that a happy
stimulus increases feelings of well-being most for subjects
already in a happy state (Jacobs et al., 1961b) was not
borne out in the present study, where MACL-H scores of the
initially happier females were less affected by the film
than those of the less happy males.

Wessman (1957) noted that females, unlike males,
tend to use the extremes of happiness on rating scales used
in surveys. On the other hand, one of the earliest studies
(Watson, 1930) reported that males believed themselves
happier than women thought themselves to be. In a more
recent survey, men and women reported similar levels of
happiness (Gurin, Veroff & Feld, 1960). Similarly, in an
intensive study of mood, Wessman and Ricks (1966) reported
little difference between Radcliffe coeds and Harvard males
on an elation-depression scale during six weeks of daily
observations. What difference there was, however, did
favor females.

There is some slight suggestion that there may be
something to the current finding that females exceed males

in happiness, but, considering the generally equivocal

 

100

nature of other findings, generalization beyond present
circumstances does not seem warranted.

The circumstances of testing may be worth recalling.
Controls took the various measures on the first day of
class, at the beginning of a new academic year. Under
these circumstances, and particularly for the many freshmen
in the sample, males and females might be expected to vary
in their relative level of well-being. Beginning college
may besa more anxiety-provoking experience for males than
females, or at least less an occasion for happiness, because
of the greater pressures on males for achievement. For
similar reasons, females may also see college as offering
more opportunities for affiliation. Differences in affil-
iativeness however, do not seem quite as situation bound

as happiness seems to be.

Sex Differences in Affiliation

Less ambiguity surrounds the finding of sex differ-
ences in affiliativeness than seems to be the case with
happiness. In the control group, females were decidedly
more affiliative on the IF Scale than male subjects. Al-
though it is possible that the questionnaire items may be
biased toward "feminine" affiliativeness, the only other
studies reviewed which directly evaluated the relative
affiliativeness of the two sexes (Exline, 1960; Becker,

1967) agree with the present finding. Exline (1960)

 

101

thought that differences in need for affiliation might
explain why females were more accurate than males in their
perception of interpersonal preferences; he found that
females did in fact give more affiliative responses than
males to French's Test of Insight. Likewise, Becker (1967)
very recently reported that females were more affiliative
than males under two different conditions for participating
in a "pain tolerance test." Females appear to be more
gregarious than males when measured by a questionnaire, as
in the present study, a projective test, or by a partic-
ipation measure under some stress. So there does seem to
be support for the generality of the present finding.

Consideration of the observed sex differences sug-
gests that perhaps women may be more open in expressing
their actual feelings and attitudes than men. In other
words, the sex differences may be due to openness rather
than actual feelings or behavior. Sherwood (1966), for
example, found that self reports of affiliativeness cor-
related well with the actual affiliative behavior of females,
but were relatively poor predictors of affiliation for males
in general, although related for "self revealing" males.
Less direct, projective devices were found better predic-
tors for males, and "concealing" males in particular.

Since the IF Scale is basically a form of self
report, it may be that the females were simply more open

about their affiliative preferences than the males in the

 

102

present study. All the same, the fact that a similar find—
ing has been reported using a projective technique (Exline,
1960) suggests that females are nevertheless more affilia-

tive than males.

Sample, and Sex Differences in Volunteering

Additional support for the conclusion that females
are more affiliative than males comes from an examination
of differences in the way subjects volunteered to partic-
ipate in the Sign Up Sheet studies.

Striking differences appear in the proportions of
subjects who actually signed up for one or more studies.
Control subjects volunteered far more often than subjects
in the experimental group. Conclusions could be drawn
from this fact about the effects of viewing the film. We
have already seen that the film appears to have lowered
the affiliativeness of subjects. A concomitant decrease
in the readiness of subjects to volunteer for further stu-
dies would seem consistent and supporting evidence, but
the difference between the groups was probably artifactual
in nature.

Tested on the very first day of class, the control
group had no research to their credit at that time, and no
knowledge of other, competing studies to take part in.
They were prime candidates for volunteering. For reasons

discussed in the chapter on procedures, experimental

 

103

subjects, on the other hand, already had at least half the
term to accumulate research credits and were also aware of
many competing studies Open to them. Thus the observed
differences in signing up might easily be accounted for by
this artifact. It is not clear, however, why the volun-
teering behavior of males and females should have been
differentially affected.

Females volunteered to participate to a greater
degree than males under both conditions, which is consis-
tent with the fact that they also appeared to prefer the
company of others more than males. Other explanations are
possible. Aside from being more affiliative, for example,
girls may simply be more cooperative than boys. Wolf and
Weiss (1965) said just the opposite, however, when birth
order effects obtained only for males on their participation
measure. Since the Wolf and Weiss (1965) study involved
stress, the "cooperativeness" of the sexes may depend on

the conditions under which subjects are asked to volunteer.

The Relationship Between Happiness
and Affiliation

Although happiness and sociability have usually
been found related (Wilson, 1967), it cannot be said that
the results of the present study unequivocally support that
general proposition, since only a moderate correlation

appeared between the MACL—H and the IF Scale, only for

 

104

females, and only under control conditions. When happiness
scores were related to the participation affiliation meas-
ure, not even that much support was mustered.

A sex difference in the magnitude of the relation-
ship between affiliation and happiness suggested by these
results, actually proved insignificant when tested. But
sex was not considered a major variable in studies examining
the "correlates of avowed happiness" (Wilson, 1967). Dif-
ferences between men and women were cited by Wilson only
incidentally, creating the impression that any differences
there might have been must have been minor. Looking again
at Wessman and Rick's (1966) longitudinal study, it is
noteworthy that they found the Radcliffe females more in-
terested in the social environment when happy than when
depressed; unfortunately the authors did not include the
social environmental items on the card sort used by their
Harvard males. More to the point, factor analyses of dif-
ferent affects and feelings reported by their subjects led
Wessman and Ricks (1966) to the conclusion that the two
samples were greatly similar in the inner accompaniments
of happiness they experienced, including feelings of
receptivity and sociability.

The fact that the IF Scale MACL-H correlation was
significant only under control conditions merely serves as
another indication that the film tended to alter the rela-

tionship between happiness and affiliation in a direction

105

opposite to that predicted by the thesis of this study,

for reasons already discussed.

Birth Order and Affiliation

Birth order effects on affiliation have-been rather
doubtful, taken over all of the studies previously reviewed
here and elsewhere (Warren, 1966). This conclusion is
basically confirmed by the results of the present study.

In Schachter's (1959) original finding, and over many sub-
sequent studies, however, the birth order-affiliation hypo-
thesis seemed to hold only for females. This is precisely
the current finding. The only significant relationship in
all of the birth order comparisons was the finding that
first-born females had higher IF Scale scores than later-
born females.

That the participation measure of affiliation
failed to show any birth order effect is also consistent
with previous findings. Among the few cases when a birth
order-affiliation relationship was found with males rather
than females, a participation measure was used (Capra &
Dittes, 1962; Wolf & Weiss, 1965).. The participation
affiliation measure in the present case was not related to
birth order even for males.

Hypotheses based on Schachter's (1959) more specific
view that it is the absolute ordinal position of birth

which is directly related to affiliativeness were not

 

106

sustained. If birth order has anything to do with gregar-
iousness, it seems to be specific to first-born and only
females, and does not seem to have any increasingly weak

effect over successively later birth positions.

Birth Order and Happiness

Since birth order had no bearing at all on how
happy subjects were, the hypothesis derived from the obser-
vation that early-born subjects are more anxious than those
born later was not sustained. But anxiety—proneness may
not be very directly related to happiness. Factors related
to unhappiness, such as anxiety, are not necessarily related
to happiness, according to a study by Bradburn and Caplovitz
(1965). Wilson-(1967) also cites a study by Green (1965),
which found even elation and depression factors uncorrelated
in factor analyses of a number of measures. 80, the results
of the present study cannot be taken as directly refuting
those by other authors concerned more specifically with

birth order and anxiety.

Interaction of Birth Order and
Experimental Conditions

The conditions of the study appeared to affect
early and later-borns differently; experimental and control
group differences on the MACL—H and IF Scale were signif-

icant only for later-born. Since the magnitude of the

 

107

differences was about the same on each test for both birth
orders, however, differences in sample sizes were probably
responsible for significance obtaining for one and not the
other birth order. But the film seems to have had an
impact only on early-born males, despite their smaller
number. Early-born males seemed more sensitive to both
conditions of the study, in fact; they tended to be happier
than later-born males under the experimental conditions,
and less happy under the control conditions. This finding
is reminiscent of the distinction drawn by Wessman and
Ricks (1966) between variability and hedonic level as inde-
pendent mood variables. Although there were no overall
differences in MACL-H scores between early and later-born
males, early-born males seemed to be more variable than
those born later, corresponding to Wessman and Rick's (1966)
"moody" and "stable" individuals. Thus, while birth order
seems to be irrelevant to the level of happiness, it may be
related to variability of happiness in males. Birth order
was not considered by Wessman and Ricks (1966), nor any of

the variability studies they reviewed (pp. 177-183).

Suggestions for Further Research

If there is validity in the idea that happiness
can lead to affiliation, the present study has been unable
to demonstrate it. Viewed from this vantage point, however,

more effective ways of pursuing the question can be seen.

 

 

108

It is clear that the potential, if not actual
effects of the film that was used were more complex than
desirable, and seemed to have direct effects upon the
dependent variable which were not mediated by happiness.

A surer way of making peOple happy is needed, one having
as little direct effect upon affiliation as possible. A
more useful film, for example, would have no people in it
at all, nor would their absence be emphasized. Finding
such a film, which is also capable of making people happy,
is not an easy task. Other ways of making people happy
should be tried. Manipulating self esteem, a variable
closely related to happiness (Wessman & Ricks, 1965) is
one possibility.

The measures that were used had reasonable internal
consistency and some degree of validity. The IF Scale was
found to have construct validity even when related to the
rather insensitive Sign Up Sheet, and the validity of the
MACL-H received support by virtue of the fact that the film
increased happiness scores of at least male subjects in the
sample. Still, the measures should be improved. The in-
ternal consistency of the IF Scale, for example, could be
higher. Even after revision and extension of the scale,
there were still some items which did not correlate well
with the rest of the test.

Despite the fact that a participation affiliation

measure like the Sign Up Sheet may be more reliable and

109

less sensitive to social desirability than other measures
(Knapp, Knapp & Weick, 1966), the Sign Up Sheet as used in
the present study does not appear versatile or sensitive
enough to warrant further use. Projective measures of
affiliation motivation might be more profitably-used to
study the effect of happiness on affiliation, since pro-
jective devices seem to have some predictive validity as
measures of affiliative behavior, especially for males
(Sherwood, 1966). Actual measurement of affiliative behav-
ior has rarely been undertaken (Sherwood, 1966; Fishman,
1966), but should be encouraged.

Sex differences cannot be ignored in further re-
search on affiliation or happiness. An understanding of
differences in the affiliative behavior of males and
females is necessary to an understanding of these variables.
Failure to make a distinction as to sex can be very mis-
leading, as the present study demonstrated. On the other
hand, pursuit of differences in happiness and affiliation
ostensibly owing to birth order position does not seem
profitable. The relevance of birth order to mood varia-
bility, however, may be worth further investigation.

A few of the questions raised by the study are
particularly worth consideration. Under what circumstances
does happiness lead to affiliation and when to a preference
for solitude? What responses other than affiliation are

affected by happiness? Are there special circumstances

110

under which females are more affiliative than males, and
vice versa, or are sex differences in affiliativeness gen-
eral across most conditions? Considering the importance
which both happiness.and the company of other people play
in everyday life, a plea for the importance of understand-
ing these variables, at least as well as the negative ones
which psychology seems to fixate upon, should be

unnecessary.

 

 

 

 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

 

Atkinson, J. W. (Ed.) Motives in fantasy, action, and
society. Princeton, N. J.:‘ Van Nostrand, 1958.

 

Atkinson, J. W., Heyns, R. W., and Veroff, J. The effect
of experimental arousal of the affiliation motive

on thematic apperception. J. abnorm. soc. Psychol.,
1954, 49, 405-410.

 

Atkinson, J. W., and Walker, E. L. The affiliation motive
and perceptual sensitivity to faces. J. abnorm.
soc. Psychol., 1956, 53, 38-41.

 

 

Audio Film Center 1969-70 16 mm Sound Films. Chicago:
Fleetwood Films, 1968.

Axelrod, J. Induced moods and attitudes toward products.
J. adv. Res., 1963, 3, 19-24.

 

Becker, G. Affiliate perception and the arousal of the
participation-affiliation motive. Percept. mot.
Skills, 1967, 24, 991-997.

 

Berkowitz, L., and Howard, R. C. Reactions to Opinion de—
viates as affected by affiliation need (n) and
group membership independence. Sociometfy, 1959,
22, 81-91.

 

Bradburn, N. M., and Caplovitz, D. Reports on happiness.
Chicago: Aldine, 1965.

 

Brehm, J. W., and Behar, Lenore B. Sexual arousal, defen-
siveness, and sex preference in affiliation. J.
exp. res. Pers., 1966, 1, 195-200.

 

Byrne, D. Anxiety and the experimental arousal of affilia-
tion need. J. abnorm. soc. Psychol., 1961, 63,
660-662. (a)

 

Byrne, D. Interpersonal attraction as a function of affilia-
tion need and attitude similarity. Hum. Relat.,
1961, 14, 283-289. (b)

 

Bryne, D. Response to attitude similarity—dissimilarity as
a function of affiliation need. J. Pers., 1962,
30, 164-177.

111

 

112

Byrne, D., McDonald, R. D., and Mikawa,_J. Approach and
avoidance affiliation motives. J. Pers., 1963,

33, 21-37.
Burdick, H. A., and Burnes, A. J. A test of "strain toward

symmetry" theories. J. abnorm. soc. Psychol.,
1958, 31, 367-370.

Capra, P. C., and Dittes, J. E. Birth order as a selective
factor among volunteer subjects. J. abnorm. soc.

Psychol., 1962, 34, 302.

Carlson, E. R. The affective tone of psychology. J. gen.
Psychol., 1966, 13, 65-78.

Conners, C. K. Birth order and needs for affiliation, 3.
Pers., 1963, 33, 408-416.

Dember, W. N. Birth order and need affiliation. J. abnorm.
soc. Psychol., 1964, 33, 555—557.

 

Exline, R. V. Effects of sex, norms, and affiliation moti—
vation upon accuracy of perception of interpersonal
preferences. J. Pers., 1960, 33, 397-412.

:Exline, R. V. Effects of need for affiliation, sex, and
the sight of others upon initial communications
in problem solving groups. J. Pers., 1962, 39,
541-556.

Ewestinger, L. A theory of social comparison processes.
Hum. Relat., 1954, 1, 117-140.

 

Ffiishman, D. B. Need and expectancy as determinants of
affiliative behavior in small groups. J. pers.
soc. Psychol., 1966, 4, 155-164.

Frnench, Elizabeth G. Development of a measure of complex
motivation. In J. W. Atkinson (Ed.), Motives in
fantasy, action, and society. Princeton, N. J.:
Van Nostrand, 1958.

Fluench, Elizabeth G., and Chadwick, Irene. Some character-
istics in affiliation motivation. J. abnorm. soc.

Psychol., 1956, 32! 296-300.

Gerard, H. B. Emotional uncertainty and social comparison.
J. abnorm. soc. Psychol., 1963, 63, 568-573.

Gerard, H. B., and Rabbie, J. M. Fear and social compari-
son. J. abnorm. soc. Psychol., 1961, 33, 586—592.

113

Green, R. F. On the measurement of mood. Technical Re-
port No. 10, 1965, Rochester University, Research
Project NR 171-342, Contract Nonr 668(12), Office
of Naval Research. Cited by W. Wilson, Correlates
of avowed happiness. Psychol. Bull., 1967, 31,

294-306.

Groesbeck, B. L. Toward description of personality in
terms of configuration of motives. In J. W.
Atkinson (Ed.) Motives in fantasy, action, and
society. Princeton, N. J.: Van Nostrand, 1958.

Gurin, G., Veroff, J., and Feld, S. Americans View their
mental health. Ann Arbor: Univer. of Michigan,

Survey Research Center, 1960.

Hamilton, M. L. Affiliative behavior as a function of ap-
proach and avoidance affiliation motives, opinion
evaluation, and birth order. J. soc. Psychol.,

1967, 1g, 61-70.

Hardy, K. R. Determinants of conformity and attitude
change. J. abnorm. soc. Psychol., 1957, 34,
289-294.

jHelmreich, R. L., and Collins, B. E. Situational determi-
nants of affiliation preference under stress. 3;

pers. soc._Psychol., 1967, 3, 79-85.

Iiimelstein, P., and Kimbrough, W. W., Jr. Reliability of
French's "Test of Insight." Educ. psychol.

Measmt., 1960, 30, 737—741.

Ehint, R. A. The effects of the experience of emotional
discrepancy upon affiliative behavior. Dissert.

Abs., 1962, a; (4), 1419—1420.

JEicobs, A., Capek, L., and Meehan, J. P. The development
of an adjective check list to measure affective

states. Psychol. Newsl., 1959, 39, 115-118. (a)

xlaxzobs, A., Capek, L., and Meehan, J. P. The measurement
of verbal responses to experimentally induced
changes in emotional states: I. The arousal of
fear. J. psychol. Stud., 1959, 33, 1-6. (b)

JEICHDbs, A., Capek, L., and Meehan, J. P. The measurement
of verbal responses to experimentally induced
changes in emotional states: II. The arousal of
feelings of depression. J. psychol. Stud., 1961,

3;, 1-12. (a)

 

 

 

 

 

114

Jacobs, A., Capek, L., and Meehan, J. P. The measurement
of verbal responses to experimentally induced
changes in emotional states: III. The arousal
of feelings of well-being. J. psychol. Stud.,
1961, 33, 128-134. (b) '

Kissel, S. Stress-reducing properties of social stimuli.
J. pers. soc. Psychol., 1965, 3, 378-384.

 

Kissel, S. Anxiety, affiliation and juvenile delinquency.
J. clin. Psychol., 1967, 33, 173-175.

 

Knapp, Deanne E., Knapp, D., and Weick, K. Interrelations
among measures of affiliation and approval moti-
vation under stress and nonstress conditions. J2
soc. Psychol., 1966, §_9_, 223-235. ‘-

 

Lansing, J. B., and Heyns, R. W. Need affiliation and
frequency of four types of communication. 3;
abnorm. soc. Psychol., 1959, 33, 365—372.

 

Levinson, Cathryn A. Perceived similarity and the judgment
of mood in others. J. soc. Psychol., 1963, 33,
99—110.

Littig, L. W., and Yeracaris, C. A. Academic achievement
correlates of achievement and affiliation moti-
vations. J. Psychol., 1963, 33, 115-119.

 

Masling, J. Birth order and the need for affiliation.
Psychol. Rep., 1965, 33, 631-632.

 

Miller, L. Subjective probability estimates as a function
of attitude structure. Unpublished doctoral dis-
sertation, Univer. of Rochester, 1960. Cited by
V. Nowlis, Research with the Mood Adjective Check-
list. In S. S. Tomkins, and C. E. Izard (Eds.)
Affect, cognition, and personality. New York:
Springer, 1965. Pp. 352-389.

Miller, N., and Zimbardo, P. Motives for fear-induced
affiliation: emotional comparison or interpersonal
similarity? J. Pers., 1966, 34, 481-503.

 

Murray, H. A. Explorations in personality (1938). New
York: Science Editions, 1962.

McGhee, P. E., and Teevan, R. C. Conformity behavior and
need for affiliation. J. soc. Psychol., 1967,
33, 117—121.

115

McKeachie, W. J., Lin, Yi-Guang, Milholland, J., and
Isaacson, R. Student affiliation motives, teacher
warmth, and academic achievement. J. pers. soc.
Psychol., 1966, 4, 457-461.

 

Nowlis, V. Research with the Mood Adjective Checklist. In
S. S. Tomkins, and C. E. Izard (Eds.) Affect,
cognition, and personality. New York: Springer,
1965. Pp. 352-389.

Nowlis, V., and Green, R. F. Factor analytic studies of
mood. Technical Report, Office of Naval Research.
Contract No. Nonr-668(12), 1964. Cited by V.
Nowlis, Research with the Mood Adjective Checklist.
In S. S. Tomkins, and C. E. Izard (Eds.) Affect,
cognition, and personality. New York: Springer,
1965. Pp. 352-389.

Pallazza, R. B., Jr. Determinants of imitative and affilia-
tive behavior. Dissert. Abs., 1966, 33, (9),
5550-5551.

 

Phillips, D. L. Social participation and happiness. Amer.
J. Soc., 1967, 13, 479-488.

Rabbie, J. M. Differential preference for companionship
under threat. J. abnorm. soc. Psychol., 1963,
31, 643-648.

 

Radloff, R. Opinion evaluation and affiliation. J. abnorm.
soc. Psychol., 1961, 33, 578—585.

 

 

Rapaport, Chanon. Character, anxiety, and social affilia-
tion. Dissert. Abs., 1964, 34 (8), 3426.

 

Rosenfeld, H. Relationships of ordinal position to affilia-
tion and achievement motives: direction and
generality. J. Pers., 1966, 34, 467-479.

Rosenfeld, H. M., and Franklin, S. S. Arousal of need for

affiliation in women. J. pers. soc. Psychol.,
1966, 3, 245-248.

 

Samelson, F. The relation of achievement and affiliation
motives to conforming behavior in two conditions
of conflict with a majority. In J. W. Atkinson
(Ed.) Motives in fantasy, action, and society.
Princeton, N. J.: Van Nostrand, 1958. Pp. 421-433.

 

 

116

Sarnoff, I., and Zimbardo, P. G. Anxiety, fear, and social
isolation. J. abnorm. soc. Psychol., 1961, 33,
356-363.

 

Schachter, S. The psychology of affiliation. Stanford:
Stanford UniVer. Press, 1959.

 

Sherwood, J. J. Self—report and projective measures of
achievement and affiliation. J. consult. Psychol.,
1966, 33, 329-337.

 

Shipley, T. E., and Veroff, J. A projective measure of
need for affiliation. J. exp. Psychol., 1952, 43,
349-356.

 

Siegel, S. Nonparametric statistics for the behavioral
sciences. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1956.

 

 

Singer, J. E., and Shockley, V. L. Ability and affiliation.
J. pers. soc. Psychol., 1965, 3, 95-100.

 

Sistrunk, F., and McDavid, J. W. Achievement motivation,
affiliation motivation, and task difficulty as
determinants of social conformity. J. soc.
Psychol., 1965, 33, 41-50.

Thompson, D. C. On investigation of the correlates of the
affiliative response. Dissert. Abs., 1964, 34
(12), 5581.

 

Warren, J. R. Birth order and social behavior. Psychol.
Bull., 1966, 33, 38-49.

 

Watson, G. Happiness among adult students of education.
J. educ. Psychol., 1930, 33, 79-109.

 

Wessman, A. E. A psychological inquiry into satisfaction
and happiness. Dissert. Abs., 1957, 31, 1384-
1385.

 

Wessman, A. E., and Ricks, D. F. Mood and personality.
New York: Rinehart and Winston, 1966.

 

Wilson, W. R. An attempt to determine some correlates and
dimensions of hedonic tone. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, Northwestern Univer., 1960. Cited
by W. Wilson, Correlates of avowed happiness.
Psychol. Bull., 1967, 31, 294—306.

 

Wilson, W. Correlates of avowed happiness. Psychol. Bull.,
1967, 31, 294—306.

 

 

 

117

WOlf, A., and Weiss, J. H. Birth order, recruitment con-
ditions, and volunteering preference. J. pers.
soc. Psychol., 1965, 3, 269-273.

 

vmrightsman, L. 8., Jr. Effects of waiting with others, on
changes in level of felt anxiety. J. abnorm. soc.
Psychol., 1960, 33, 216—221.

 

ZSianardo, P., and Formica, R. Emotional comparison and
self esteem as determinants of affiliation. 33
Pers., 1963, 33, 141-162.

 

 

 

 

APPENDICES

 

APPENDIX A

FACE SHEET

PROJECT #379, MSU, 1968, No. 1

DATE:

 

STUDENT NO.:

 

AGE:

 

SEX:

 

MAJOR:

 

FAMILY SIZE: (No. of children in your family):

BIRTH POSITION (Your birth position in family):
(circle one): Only, lst, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, later.

 

Twin? (check one): yes , no
PARENTS: Father: natural , other (step, adoptive, etc.):
Mother: natural , other .

118

 

 

APPENDIX B

MOOD ADJECTIVE CHECKLIST

 

 

NE”

 

MOOD ADJECTIVE CHECKLIST

Each of the following words describes feelings or
mood. Please use the list to describe your feelings at the
moment you read each word. If the word definitely describes
how you feel at the moment you read it, circle the double
check (vv) to the right of the word. For example, if the
word is relaxed and you are definitely feeling relaxed at
the moment, circle the vv as follows:

relaxed (::> v ? no (This means you definitely feel
relaxed at the moment.)

If the word only slightly applies to your feelings
at the moment, circle the single check v as follows:

relaxed vv C) ? no (This means you feel slightly
relaxed at the moment.)

If the word is not clear to you or you cannot de-
cide whether or not it applies to your feelings at the
moment, circle the question mark as follows:

relaxed vv v C) no (This means you cannot decide
whether you are relaxed or
not.)

If you definitely decide the word does not apply
to your feelings at the moment, circle the no as follows:

relaxed W V ? (This means you are definitely
not relaxed at the moment.)

Work rapidly. Your first reaction is best. Work
down the column, then go to the next. Please mark all
words. This should take only a few minutes. Please begin.

engaged in thought vv v ? no elated vv v ? no

irritated vv v ? no suspicious vv v ? no
glad vv v ? no earnest vv v ? no
frightened vv v ? no forgiving vv v ? no
dubious vv v ? no sad vv v ? no
depressed vv v ? no cheerful vv v ? no
miserable VV v ? no exasperated vv v ? no
contemplative vv v ? no irate vv V ? no

merry vv v ? no attentive vv v ? no
angry vv v ? no somber vv v ? no
skeptical vv v ? no uneasy vv v ? no

119

 

120

cowardly vv V ?

no
tense vv v ? no
expansive vv v ? no
dull vv v ? no
ecstatic vv v ? no
serious vv V ? no
timid vv av ? no
subdued vv v ? no
warmhearted vv v ? no
gay vv V ? no
incensed VV v ? no
wretched VV V ? no
annoyed vv v ? no
cheerless vv V ? no
panicky VV v ? no
anxious VV v ? no
sluggish vv V ? no
infuriated vv v ? no
kindly VV v ? no
lively VV v ? no
downhearted VV V ? no
brooding vv v ? no
alarmed vv V ? no
gloomy VV v ? no
downcast VV v ? no
disgusted vv V ? no
apprehensive VV v ? no

worried VV v ?

 

affectionate vv V ? no
concerned vv v ? no
resentful VV v ? no
concentrating vv V ? no
drowsy VV V ? no

happy VV v ? no
indignant vv v ? no
exultant VV «v ? no
enraged vv V ? no
unhappy VV v ? no
provoked VV v ? no
jolly VV v ? no
pleased VV V ? no
intent vv v ? no
fearful vv v ? no
discouraged VV v ? no
terrified VV v ? no
contented vv V ? no
tired VV V ? no

joyous VV V ? no

mad vv v ? no
introspective vv V ? no
vexed vv v ? no

no
no

dejected VV v ?
scared vv V ?

 

 

 

 

 

APPENDIX C

THE IF SCALE

 

 

 

THE "IF" SCALE

The following questions call upon your ability to
imagine yourself in a variety of situations and conditions.
Try to imagine yourself in each one in the way it is des-
cribed, and then choose one of the three answers which most
fits you at this moment._—P1ace your answer in the appropriate
space on the answer sheet provided. Work quickly, but
please answer every question. This should take only a few
minutes. Please begin.

 

1. If you were able to choose one thing that would happen
to you in college, would it be:

 

(a) something academic
(b) something social
(c) something practical

2. If you were pleasantly anticipating doing something
exciting and fun, would you

(a) let your imagination go
(b) tell somebody else about it
(c) keep it under your hat

3. If you really wanted to kick up your heels, would you
prefer to:

(a) get a gang together and paint the town
(b) drive a fast car
(c) hop a plane for anywhere

4. If you were going to be subject in a psychological ex-
periment on the discrimination of tastes in one hour,
would you prefer to:

(a) ”Contémpfateiyour”favorite flavors,
(b) 'see what kinds Cf things others like
(0) read up on tests discrimination

5. If you were at home now and the telephone rang, would
you be:

(a) paggravated
(b) "deliéhted‘
<c>“;uneé§yl

.4» - .-.,- 121

1J2.

122

If you were feeling really great about yourself, would
you:

(a) do your work really effectively
(b) communicate your joy to nature
(0) spread your good feeling around to others

If you found yourself with more free time than you had
expected to have in college, would you:

(a) ‘jOin a special interest group
(b) take more course work
(0) catch up on your leisure reading

 

If you noticed that no one had come to Visit you for
some time, would you:

(a) appreciate their consideration
(b) visit someone yourself right away
(c) be surprised that you had noticed

If you were elected to an honorary society, would you:

(a) attend meetings regularly
(b) earn the honor by studying hard
(c) make light of it

If you were waiting in the lobby to see a movie, would
you:

(a) think about.reViews Of the moVie
(b) look around for someone you knew
(c) buy yourself some popcorn

If you had just received an invitation to a class re-
union, would you be:

(a) too busy to go
(b) uneasy about it
(c) delighted to go

If you had just successfully completed a difficult but
satisfying task, would you:

(a) enjoy a deserved rest
(b) “tackle the next tough job
(c) throw a party

 

 

 

 

13.

1'4.-

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

123

If it were evening and you were completely free, would
you prefer to:

(a) «watch T.V.
(b) curl up with a good book
(0) go visiting

-If you were stranded by yourself on a desert island,

would you prefer to spend the time:

(a) trying to get back to civilization
(b) meditating on the meaning of life
(c) relaxing in the peace and quiet of it all

If you were not sure of your feelings about doing some-
thing, would you:

(a) recall how you felt in similar situations
(b) consider doing something else instead
(0) find someone else to do it with

If you had just discovered a surprising, new capacity
in yourself, would you:

(a) keep your mouth shut about it
(b) glow in your private revelation
(0) write home about it

If you found yourself standing outside of a room in
which a few people were talking, would you:

(a) go in
(b) walk away
(c) stand still

If you really felt like rewarding yourself for some-
thing, would you:

(a) go dining and dancing
(b) buy something
(c) luxuriate in sleep

If there was something you had to do in about 15 minutes
and you had to wait nearby until then, would you:

(a) read something
(b) talk to a friend for a while
(c) just sit and rest a while by yourself

 

 

 

 

 

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

26.

124

If you were waiting to see the dentist, would you pre-
fer to wait:

(a) with other patients
(b) by yourself
(c) with a good book

If you were feeling kind of low, would you:

(a) keep busy
(b) avoid bothering anyone with it
(c) join others having fun

If you suddenly seemed to feel very elated and happy
without knowing why, would you:

(a) share your joy with others
(b) keep it to yourself for a while
(c) just enjoy the feeling

If you felt you needed a break from studying, would
you prefer to:

(a) go to the grill
(b) take a walk
(c) sleep

If you had an opportunity to go abroad, would you pre-
fer to:

(a) go with a tour group
(b) finish your studies
(C) go alone

If you had just been told that a party to which you had
been invited had been canceled, would you feel:

(a) relaxed
(b) relieved
(c) frustrated

If you were going to move to another place to live,
would you think most about:

(a) meeting new challenges
(b) seeing new things
(c) meeting new people

27.

28.

29.

30.

31.

32.

33.

125

If you found yourself apparently being ignored at a
party, would you:

(a) be glad to know this was not your kind of crowd
(b) leave the party quietly, with dignity
(c) talk to someone else who seemed to be alone

If you were going to be given electric shock in some
spookey experiment would you prefer to wait for your
turn to be shocked:

(a) alone
(b) with others
(c) don't care

If you had your choice of living arrangements, would
you prefer to:

(a) join a fraternity or sorority
(b) get your own apartment
(c) live at home

If you felt like expressing your disagreement with some
institution's policies, would you:

(a) join a group protesting the policies
(b) write a letter to the editor of a newspaper
(0) make sure first that your ideas were better

If you felt at peace with the whole world right now,
would you:

(a) feel like a better person than before
(b) feel like being with someone
(c) feel like really working effectively

If you felt like becoming more interested in politics
right now, would you:

(a) study the important issues carefully
(b) join a political action group
(c) write your congressman about your Views

If you had nothing to do this evening, would you take
this opportunity to:

(a) see a movie
(b) have a friend over
(0) read Playboy magazine

34.

35.

36.

37.

38.

39.

40.

126

If you really felt like "turning on," would you:

(a) pursue understanding through meditation

(b) become deeply involved in the lives of
other people

(c) bathe in the sounds of groovy music

If no one seemed to sit near you in class, would you:
(a) ask someone if your deodorant was working
(b) use extra space for books and things
(c) drop the class

If you wanted to broaden your horizons, would you:
(a) read more widely

(b) join a cultural discussion group
(c) see some art exhibits

 

If you were trying to kill time until your next class,
would you:

(a) have a coke with someone
(b) go over your notes
(0) just relax and take it easy

If you weren't going to college right now, would you
rather be:

(a) starting a successful career
(b) loafing on the beach
(c) in the Peace Corps

If you were feeling sort of tense for no apparent
reason, would you:

(a) try to take your mind off it
(b) talk to somebody
(0) try to figure it out

If you were really feeling like having some privacy for
a change, would you:

(a) keep your door closed
(b) disappear for awhile
(0) go to the library

41.

42.

43.

44.

45.

46.

47.

127

If you had just finished a tough job to your great satis—
faction, would you:

(a) take a refreshing rest
(b) look forward to the next job
(c) celebrate it quietly with somebody

If a thunder storm forced you to remain indoors on a
Saturday, would you:

(a) putter around at your favorite hobby
(b) watch the beauty of the storm
(0) gab with someone on the telephone

If there was some uncertainty in the way you felt about
something, would you:

(a) imagine yourself feeling one way or the other
(b) try to forget about it for awhile
(c) check your feelings out with someone else

If you were lost in the woods, would you prefer to find:

(a) a compass
(b) someone else lost
(0) a boyscout handbook

If you found that you were intellectually so far superior
to anyone that you stood in a class by yourself, would
you be:

(a) absolutely delighted
(b) rather sad
(c) very much surprised

If you were new around here, would you find yourself
most interested in:

(a) getting to know everybody
(b) getting to know where everything is
(c) getting to know how to succeed in college

If you had just realized that no one had telephoned you
in two days, would you:

(a) think nothing of it
(b) be grateful for having peace and quiet
(0) find out what was going on

 

 

 

48.

49.

50.

128

If you were waiting in line for something right now,
would you pass the time:

(a) daydreaming about something nice

(b) gleefully anticipating what you were waiting
for

(c) talking with someone in line

If you were going to a world's fair, would you feel
like going:

(a) with a church group
(b) by yourself
(0) at some other time

If you had really earned a bit of a treat, would you:
(a) take time to see friends

(b) get yourself something nice
(c) do absolutely nothing for awhile

 

 

APPENDIX D

THE SIGN UP SHEET

 

 

 

v \D“
0'

 

PLEASURE EXPERIENCE PROJECT, # 379

SIGN UP SHEET

From time to time the department of psychology
needs subjects to participate in various research projects.
The present series offers an opportunity to serve as sub-
jects in studies which we can happily recommend as not
only educational for the student, but also as uniquely
enjoyable too. You will receive credit for participation
in these studies as well. Your preferences will be of
much help to us whether you wish to participate or not.
Thank you for your cooperation.

 

Please rank these studies in order of your prefer—
ences for them. The highest rank (the one you prefer most)
is 1; rank 2 is next most preferred, and 3 is least pre-
ferfed. Write in the letter of each study next to its
appropriate rank, using the spaces below.

 

Exp. A. This study will involve a film which will describe
and illustrate various types of activities
pleasurable to most people. The film will be fol-
lowed by measures of pleasure sensitivity in which
the subject is isolated from all other sources of
distraction, including the experimenter.

Time: approx. 1—1/2 hrs.

Exp. B. This study will involve another film which will
describe and illustrate various types of activities
pleasurable to most people. The film will be fol—
lowed by separate, individual interviews to test
the effects of pleasure on the senses.

Time: approx. 1—1/2 hrs.

129 1

 

 

130

Exp. C. This study will involve a third film which will
describe and illustrate various types of activi—
ties pleasurable to most people. The film will
be followed by a group discussion, in groups of
3 to 6 persons, regarding the effects of pleasure
on the senses.

Time: approx. 1-1/2 hrs.

You may wish to participate in all, two, one, or
none of these studies. Please indicate your choice by
placing a check mark in one of the spaces below.

I wish to participatein:

all three studies

my top two ranked studies
my top ranked study only
none of the studies

Name:
Student NO.:
Age:
Sex:

 

 

 

 

(Note: The original Sign Up Sheet appeared on a single
page, printed in elite type.)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

APPENDIX E

GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS TO EXPERIMENTERS FOR

ADMINISTRATION OF THE MEASURES

 

(‘3qu

 

 

INSTRUCTIONS

1. Your usual "hello" stuff.

2. Tell about research participation; credit received for
it, etc., as you normally would.

3. Remainder of the hour (about one-half hour-at least)
they will complete some research material for which they
will get 1 credit toward the 3 credits needed.

4. Distribute "credit" sheet so they can sign it and get
credit for this research.

5. Distribute questionnaire packets yourself to assure
each S gets the whole bunch. (The kids tend to think they
should pass on some of the materials if you have them do
it. It seems like a fat pack, but it really takes them
very little time to do.) You can tell them to go ahead
and fill out the first page (cover sheet) when they get
the package.

 

 

 

6. Have several kids help pass around the pencils. The
"IF" Scale will be machine scored, so please make sure
they use the pencils.

7. Read the instructions for the Mood Adjective Checklist
fairly rapidly. The kids usually catch on quickly. They
333 supposed to write right on the ACL form. Make sure
they don't try to use the IBM answer sheet which goes with
the next test. You can tell the class as much if you see
them starting to use the IBM sheet.

 

The Mood ACL takes the kids very little time to do;
usually 5 to 10 minutes.

IF Scale

8. The kids will do these tests at different rates though.
So when you see them turning to do the next test--let them
do so, and after about a third of them have proceeded to

the next one, mention that they should be finishing the
Adjective Checklist pretty soon and starting on the IF Scale.

131

 

 

 

132

(It is important to keep them busy rather than sitting
around talking; the latter should be discouraged.)

When you notice a few kids starting on the IF Scale,
tell them to make sure they use the IBM answer sheet
provided. Tell them to simply put their student number
in the upper right hand corner of the answer sheet and
EHeir section number (tell them what it is) and not to
bother filling in the rest of the stuff.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tell them to make sure they read the instructions
before beginning. "I'll read them right now since some
of you are beginning the IF Scale." Then, read the in-
structions fairly rapidly. Emphasize "remember ES—choose
the answer that most fits you at this moment." You
needn't stop everyone before yafi read the instructions--
most will continue with one ear open. That's okay.

 

There are some typo errors on the IF Scale, but they
don't seem to be serious ones. If someone asks you, you
can tell them the correct Spelling, but don't bother to
correct them all to the class.

Sign Up Sheet

9. When you notice some Ss finishing the IF Scale, 33y:
"Other experiments in the Prpject 379 series are going to
be conducted in the— near future. When you finish the 33
Scale, you wiII find a Sign _p Sheet for these experiments
under your test materials. Please be sure 33 read them
very carefully and fill them out completely. Your rankings

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

of these studies will be ver helpful in deciding on
priorities in doing the studies."

 

 

 

Then read the instructions about ranking. "Please
rank . . . . etc."

 

Tell the kids to put down their sex along with the
other information at the bottom of the si n Ep'sheets--
there was an error in printing which 1e t it out.

10. You can tell them toward the end, that they can leave
when they have finished, if you need to.

When they hand in their stuff, accept it personally and

put it in a criss-cross pattern to keep the stuff separated.

It does not matter what order they have their stuff in as
long as it is all there together.

133

11. You can anticipate a number Of questions the kids
might ask (usually as they are leaving). Some examples:

(1) Why names and Student Numbers?

Ans: TO keep the stuff straight and together. The name is
needed so they can be contacted for the experiments (on

the sign up sheet). Names shouldn't be placed on the other
materials, because they will not be needed, but it doesn't
matter if they do. All test materials are strictly
confidential.

(2) Are these tests to be interpreted personally to
them? What do they tell about my personality? etc.

Ans: These tests are strictly for research purposes only.
They will not be interpreted or used individually at all,
but only as grouped data, e.g. averages, etc. This also
means that they will not get personal, individual feed-
back about the stuff. It just isn't used for that purpose.

 

(3) (During administration of Sign Up Sheet) Do I have
to be in these experiments?

Ans.: No, you will notice there is a place for you to in-
dicate whether or not you want to be in any of them at
the bottom of the sheet. But please be sure to rate them
anyway.

(4) When can I be in the experiments? (re Sign Up
Sheets) etc.

Ans: They will be contacted about the studies by someone
later if they signed up. Right now this is mainly to help
in planning which study to do first, etc. The student is
not necessarily 100% committed to being in the studies.
They will hear about it later.

33 33 important to maintain the ruse about the sign up
sheet throughout the—administratiOH of the tests-—otherwise
Ss overbearing will invalidate the research. Further re-
search is going to be done using Other 151 students (and
also possible these same 85) so it is better not to debrief
them at all if you can.

 

 

However, they will be thinking they have got some studies
to be in already for their research credits. In a week or
two, you can tell them that the three studies have been
postponed indefinitely because of some vague troubles in ‘
getting materials or something. And that they should not

 

 

134

wait around counting on them if they can get their research
credits in some other way. (Especially if other researchers
are trying to get Ss). Perhaps at the end of the term they

could be told about the research but let's see about that
later.

12. If you have any questions, or need any additional tests
or materials, please call me:

Dick Gatley

Home: 351-0258

Counseling Center (Off.):
355—8270

 

 

 

 

 

APPENDICES F THROUGH J

TABLES OF MACL-H AND IF SCALE MEANS, AND SIGN UP
SHEET RANKINGS FOR ONLY CHILDREN AND FIRST-BORN,

AND FOR EXTENDED BIRTH ORDER CATEGORIES

 

Appendix F.--MACL-H and IF Scale Means of First-Born and
Only Children

 

 

 

 

 

MACL-H IF Scale
Birth Order Birth Order
t t
Subjects Only First Test Only First Test
Males N 6 50 6 47
M 4.50 4.94 ns 17.67 19.94 ns
Females N 12 74 12 72
M 5.92 6.45 ns 21.25 22.75 ns
Controls N 7 64 7 61
M 5.57 5.22 ns 18.57 22.87 ns
Experimentals N 11 60 ll 58
M 5.36 6.50 ns 21.00 20.34 ns
Combined N 18 124 18 119
M 5.44 5.84 ns 20.06 21.64 ns

 

135

 

136

Appendix G.—-Frequencies With Which Only and First-Born
Subjects Ranked the Studies as First,
Second, or Third

 

 

 

Rank 1 Rank 2 Rank 3

 

 

 

 

Birth Order Birth Order Birth Order
Study Only First X2 Only First X2 Only First X2
Group 7 31 5 31 7 41
Individual 4 34 ns 11 45 ns 4 24 ns
Isolation _3 38 _3 27 _3 38
N 19 103 19 103 19 103

 

Note: Subjects Of both sexes from both experimental
and control groups are combined for these comparisons due to
the small number of only-born subjects in the sample.

 

 

137

Appendix H.--Frequencies With Which the Studies Were Ranked
as First by Only and First-Born, and Later-Born

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Subjects
Birth Order Birth Order Birth Order
Only Only “ Only
And And 2 And 2
Study First Later X First Later X First Later x
Males Females Controls
Group 14 23 24 36 24 30
Individual 14 19 ns 24 31 ns 18 29 ns
Isolation 33_ 31 33 46 31 33
N 49 69 73 113 69 98
Experimentals Combined
Group 14 29 38 59
Individual 20 21 ns 38 50 ns
Isolation 33 34 46 73
N 53 84 122 182

 

138

Appendix I.--MACL—H and IF Scale Means of Extended Birth
Order Categories

 

 

Birth Order

 

 

 

 

Only 4th
And And
Test Subjects First 2nd 3rd Later F
MACL-H Males N 56 47 19 11
M 4.89 4.36 4.47 6.00 0.61
Females N 86 86 36 17
M 6.37 5.94 7.11 4.65 1.48
Control N 71 58 26 15
Group M 5.25 4.64 4.73 5.93 0.62
Experimental N 71 75 29 13
Group M 6.32 5.96 7.52 4.31 1.83
Combined N 142 133 55 28
Groups M 5.79 5.38 6.20 5.18 0.68
IF ' Males N 53 44 19 10
SCALE M 19.11 19.38 18.37 18.80 0.10
Females N 84 83 36 16
M 22.54 21.06 21.11 18.63 2.06
Control N 68 56 26 14
Group M 21.99 22.52 20.65 19.21 1.19
Experimental N 69 71 29 12
Group M 20.45 18.87 19.72 18.08 0.94
Combined N 137 127 55 26
Groups M 21.43 20.48 20.16 18.69 1.67

 

139

Appendix J.--Frequencies With Which the Studies Were Ranked
as First by Subjects of Extended Birth Order

 

 

 

 

Categories
Birth Order
Only 4th
And And 2
Subjects Study First 2nd 3rd Later X
Males Group 14 ll 8 4
Individual l4 9 7 3 7.27
Isolation 21 21 3 3 ns
N 49 41 18 10
Females Group 24 22 ll 3
Individual 24 19 7 5 2.24
Isolation 25 28 13 5 ns
N 73 69 31 13
Control Group 24 16 10 4
Group Individual 18 12 ll 6 9.33
Isolation 27 29 5 5 ns
N 69 57 26 15
Experimental Group l4 l7 9 3
Group Individual 20 16 3 2 4.82
Isolation 19 20 11 3 ns
N 53 53 23 8
Combined Group 38 33 19 7
Groups Individual 38 28 14 8 2.80
Isolation 46 49 16 8 ns
N 122 110 49 23

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"F‘I‘

   

”'Immlmngmmmammangmmm'ES